Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 9 September 2010

User talk:Fastily/header

Neon Knights Page

Hey you never got back to me on my last question. You said you would reinstate the Neon Knights (Band) page once a few adjustments had been made. What adjustments are these? Thanks

Er. I happened to notice this post just now. If still applicable, could the person who posted this indicate somewhere so I know who posted? Thanks, FASTILY 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Its me (vansheboy), just wondering what changes I need to make to get page back up as per our last discussion that was removed. Thanks

Looks like the page was WP:PROD'd. Did I tell you I could restore the page for you if you wanted? Although FWIW, I recommend having a draft restored to your userspace so you can work on it there before moving it to the mainspace. Your call though. -FASTILY 19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of photograph: File:St. Pius X school crest.jpg

I am requesting an explanation of your deletion of the file St. Pius X school crest.jpg. 1. As explained in the deletion debate, the file was legally acquired under Irish law. 2. Your deletion note said, "The result of the debate was delete", however, the only one who voted for delete was the original proposer. The others who took part in the debate voted for keep, so I do not understand how "the result of the debate" was delete. I am planning to appeal this decision on these grounds but I thought I would see if perhaps a misunderstanding had occurred, first. Thank you. --O'Dea (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the file because of the egregious interpretation of FOP that was being applied to back the keep !votes. Remember that PUF discussions are not a poll and that deletion discussions are judged on the basis of the validity of the points raised. Since none of the rationale provided for the keep !votes was valid, I deleted the file accordingly. For future reference: FOP applies to images of entire buildings and statues ONLY; it is unacceptable to zoom in and photograph a logo on the side of a building and claim it as free content under FOP. Hope that helps to clarify. Regards, FASTILY 00:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that my use of COM:FOP#Ireland is entirely valid and certainly not egregious as you argue. Let's look at the actual text of the law: "...sculptures...and works of artistic craftsmanship" may be reproduced. The law does not maintain that only entire buildings may be photographed, as you say, but clearly identifies that subsidiary elements may be photographed such as "sculptures and craftmanship", such as carving details and finishes, fairly small details. The law nowhere prohibits isolation of detail of a work in a public place: "The copyright in a work...is not infringed by...making a photograph or film of it" and the wording explicitly embraces building elements because they are displayed in public. Do you think this is allowed by FOP, File:Gonzaga College Crest.jpg? (See image description, too.) --O'Dea (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll look into it. -FASTILY 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. You see, I was thinking of going at the question this way, too: I have a picture of the school gates with pillars, with the buildings in the background. Then I have a picture of just the pillars with gates between them. The school crest is up there publicly for all to see (and photgraph, I submit); the crest is not private. Then I have a picture of just one pillar. Finally, a picture showing a close-up of the crest on the pillar. Now, at what point does a picture become invalid, by your lights, along that continuum — and how do you know where to draw the line? I can take a picture of a church: are you saying I can't use a picture where I isolate a gargoyle or sheela-na-gig? (See detail pictures at those two articles, please, showing legitimate use of building detail; they support my case.) I submit that Irish law says I can capture an image of craftsmanship, including artwork on a school pillar. --O'Dea (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at these building details from Wikicommons: Crest (isolated architectural detail); sign and logo; corporate logo/sign, plaque detail, plaque detail, organization logo. The taking of pictures of public phenomena is legitimate and legally protected in many countries. --O'Dea (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of page

I am not sure whom to contact.

You just deleted the Avail-TVN page due to my username matching the page. As a new Misplaced Pages user, I was unaware that I couldn't do this. The only changes that were made to the Avail-TVN page were updating the company name and logo. There wasn't anything written that was different than what had been online for some time.

Can you please bring the page back to allow me to make edits?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.161.190.65 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted as an advertisement. Per WP:ADS, advertising and spam is strictly prohibited on Misplaced Pages and is subject to on-sight deletion under speedy deletion criterion G11. -FASTILY 00:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tosca Lee Misplaced Pages Author

Fastily,

You recently deleted the wikipedia article for Author Tosca Lee.

I am curious why this page was deleted. The Tosca Lee article is linked to several other articles on Misplaced Pages and is just a quick introduction to this well-known author.

Can you please verify why this was deleted and provide feedback on how this article can be revised to pass the appropriate requirements?

Thanks, Katie Weaver 174.157.228.12 (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an account registered with Misplaced Pages? It would make it easier for me to reply to your query if I knew which editor you were, as, I wasn't able to tell through looking at the article's deleted revisions. -FASTILY 00:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

Nrusinghnath is a place of religious tourist importance to entire Western Orissa and nearby state of Chhattisgarh. I am a native of this place, hence I know about this place.

Requesting not to delete the article hence forth. If you think there is any advertisement kinda stuff, then please communicate the same to amitabhpatra@gmail.com before deleting.

Thanks, Amitabh Patra —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitabhPatra (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:AmitabhPatra#Re:Hi -FASTILY 01:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Tim-pete2.jpg

I wrote Tim and Pete and would like to use this file there please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyjoyfeelings (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Er. Sorry, but the file was deleted per Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2010_August_28#File:Tim-pete2.jpg. Is that what you were looking for? -FASTILY 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the file was used on the author biography so was set to be deleted but I used it on the book article where I think it's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyjoyfeelings (talk • contribs) 01:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw my response, I put a note on the Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2010_August_28#File:Tim-pete2.jpg section that the file is used at Tim and Pete. I think it's fine to use on the article about the book. Can you reconsider? (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Paikamal

Hey, you have again deleted this - http://en.wikipedia.org/Paikamal What makes you think that it is containing any advertising material ? can you be more specific please ?

Thanks, Amitabh —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitabhPatra (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your decision in regards to File:Special Tribunal for Lebanon logo.jpg

Hello, you recently closed the discussion into File:Special Tribunal for Lebanon logo.jpg here. You said the result of the debate was "delete" although no one voted for deletion (other than the nominator) and my comment to the contrary was never addressed. Could you please reconsider your decision or at the very least provide a reason for your decision? – Zntrip 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In your comment at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 25#File:Special Tribunal for Lebanon logo.jpg, you state you "think" the file is free, but do you know for sure? This was the entire reason as to why the file was listed at WP:PUF in the first place. Provide me with the document/website that provides solid evidence indicating the file is indeed free content and I'll restore the file. -FASTILY 03:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fastily,

You just deleted my work on the solar thermal pump. It might sound like promotion, but the problem is that there is only one such pump in the world. Will this be a never ending story? Me writing and you deleting?

Eppo Maas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaseppo (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Maaseppo#Re:Solar Thermal Pump -FASTILY 06:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why was my article deleted?

Hey I tried (twice) to write an article about a music festival- The Ashland Mind Music Festival. http://en.wikipedia.org/Ashland_Mind_Music_Festival Both times it was removed- due to 'unambiguous promotion.' So here is my inquiry: how do I either 1.) have the page removed entirely OR 2) write an article the won't be removed?

blake_K_norris@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrgobossajova (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Karrgobossajova#Re:Question:_Why_was_my_article_deleted.3F -FASTILY 06:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

Nyttend just restored this after he deleted it, after I raised the lack of clear consensus at CfD (one keep and one delete within a few months), then you come along and delete it again. I had suggested to Nyttend that a new Cfd (once the category is populated) might be better than speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The earlier CfD was at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20#Category:Silver Buffalo awardees. Unfortunately, it was not linked correctly at the start of the second one. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I read that the result of the most recent discussion was delete. Am I missing something...? -FASTILY 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are missing that when another admin speedily deleted it because of that discussion, he restored it when questioned. So, an admin speedily deleted it, reconsidered it and restored. You then speedily deleted it within 24 hours without referring to him. I do appreciate that admins are under no obligation to discuss their admin actions with anyone, least of all other admins with whom they disagree and whose actions they are undoing, but it ain't conducive to a positive and collaborative atmosphere. Nyttend has described your behaviour as possibly wheel-warring, and suggested I take it to ANI. I'd rather not.

So, we have two CfD's within a few months of each other, with opposite outcomes, and a recent recreation which one admin, on being asked about it, has decided should not be speedied. My position is that I do not believe that a clear consensus for deletion can be said to exist, based on my readings of the CFDs and Nyttend's decision to rescind his action. I'd be interested to know your reason for counter-acting Nyttend's actions without talking to him first. I would suggest that a new CfD (with the category being properly populated first) would have been more appropriate than speedying, if you believe that the category should be deleted.DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that Nyttend is already jumping to conclusions of wheel-warring; in my dealings with him, he is quick to assume bad faith and is frequently uncommunicative. I have not violated WP:0WW, and I'll personally start an ANI thread to evaluate and judge my delete if need be. In all fairness, if you can point me to a discussion that occurred more recently than Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees with a clear consensus to keep the category, I'll restore the page, no further questions. Regards, FASTILY 23:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to one with a clear consensus to delete? Your insistence on speedying appears to be based on just the kind of proceduralist arguments that were discounted in order to allow a delete close to the last CfD. As to "uncommunicative", you could see from the logs of the page that Nyttend had reconsidered the speedy already, you disagreed with him, and chose to reverse his action without mentioning it to him. Is that him being uncommunicative, or is it you?

As I said, I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. I do see confusion and disagreement between admins. Recreation, population, and a third CfD if you believe it should be deleted, seem to me to be a way forward. DuncanHill (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, calm down. I thought we were having a cordial and professional discussion. As far as I'm concerned, Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees was closed as delete. That's good enough for me, and should be good enough for you. If there's a problem with that close, you need to discuss it with the deleting admin, not me. So far, you have failed to provide me with a more recent discussion than Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees, closed as keep or no consensus. If you've shown this missing discussion to Nyttend, please know that I would like to see it too. That being said, I will be requesting the opinion of the original CSD nominator and see what they have to say. If they too agree there is no clear consensus to keep/delete the page, I'll gladly restore and relist the page at CFD. Please understand that I am not trying to f*ck with you or make your life difficult. I am only interested in upholding policy and tangible consensus. -FASTILY 07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Nyttend to reconsider his speedy deletion of the category, he did, and restored. To my mind that is the same as declining the speedy. What does policy say to do when a speedy is declined? I don't know why you keep alluding to a "missing discussion" - I have never suggested there was another apart form the two contradictory ones already mentioned. For you to rely on procedural niceties, when the "delete" CfD which you support excluded "keep" !votes on the grounds that they were based on procedural niceties strikes me as, well, a bit off.

As for the original CSD nominator, I don't know who that is, but I would guess he is someone who is currently using the deletion of this category as an argument for the deletion of certain other related categories - perhaps you would tell me if this is so?

I never suggested that you were trying to make my life difficult, I'm just trying to get some clarity. DuncanHill (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see nothing improper in the original closing of the CFD as delete, no discussion in the intervening years that indicate that consensus has changed regarding the category (indeed, many similar categories for similar awards along these lines have been deleted in the intervening years), no indication that the category was needed or wanted (having lain deleted for well over three years and only re-created when it was mentioned as having been deleted in this CFD for two other Scouting awards. Had I not linked in the CFD I have no doubt that the category would not have been re-created. Reading through the 2007 CFD it appears that the closing admin interpreted the debate reasonably and within the bounds of his discretion. The deletion arguments appear to be superior both in number and in quality, with the comments by Dr. Submillimeter being particularly persuasive. As noted by the closing admin, many of the keep opinions were based on the recentness of the previous CFD and did not discuss policies or guidelines, nor did they in my opinion successfully rebut the assertion that the Silver Buffalo is the sort of award that warrants categorization with one editor questioning whether the award itself was even notable under WP guidelines. Since the determination of consensus appears to be valid, there should be no problem with the speedy deletion.
• I do not understand DuncanHill's assertion that there is no clear consensus, which if I am reading his comments correctly is at least partially based on the existence of the earlier CFD which closed as keep. Consensus can change and each new CFD is dealt with in turn. The existence and outcome of the first CFD were provided to the interested parties, who were free to consider it in formulating their opinions. The closing admin, however, was under no obligation to consider the old CFD when closing the new one. If an editor believes the outcome of a CFD is in error because the closing administrator misinterpreted policy or consensus, the editor may open a deletion review to allow the community to consider the matter. That did not happen here following the close in 2007 nor as near as I can tell in the intervening 3 1/2 years.
• I do not understand Nyttend's assertion that this category is "different from before" or hir comment on DuncanHill's talk page that "the entire contents" of the re-created page were different. As I said on Nyttend's talk page, whether the category is called "awardees" or "recipients" it's still for people who have been given the Silver Buffalo. If CFD results in the deletion of Category:Fooian Boos", allowing Category:Boos who are Fooian to remain for the same contents is an invitation to editors to game the system, re-creating their preferred categories under names that are variant enough for them to claim it's a completely new category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@are You The Cow of Pain, think you it possible that consensus might have changed since the delete CfD? Speedy does not allow us to judge this. I'd also be interested to know did you tag it for speedy twice? Someone tagged it, Nyttend deleted then reconsidered and restored, then you tagged it again. If you disagreed with Nyttend's restoration, perhaps it would have been better to have talked to him about it. The fact that it was recreated, and that Nyttend undid his speedy, suggests that there is not cler consensus for it remaining deleted. I have repeatedly suggested that the best way to achieve clarity is for it to be restored, populated, and a new, third, CfD to be opened by anyone who thinks it should be deleted. The two original CfDs were 3 years ago, it is not "gaming the system" to suggest a new go. The second Cfd so soon after the first "keep" was. DuncanHill (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to draw both Fastily's and Are You The Cow Of Pain?'s attention to this comment on the latter's talk page, , which is directly relevant to this case. DuncanHill (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fastily, you have said you want to see policy kept to, please re-read WP:CSD, paying particular attention to the third paragraph "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.". This cat had survived a previous deletion discussion. Now, Fastily you are an admin, so I think it is reasonable to assume that you were already familiar with this, and Are You The Cow, you had previously had your attention drawn to this, so I would like an explanation from both of you as to why you deliberately ignored the policy you pretend to be enforcing? DuncanHill (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jclemens's interpretation of that statement is disputed. Note that the proscription on deleting such material is not absolute ("should not" does not mean "may not" or "shall not"). And no, based on the many deletion discussions relating to awards categories that have taken place between January 2007 and now I do not believe that consensus against them has changed in general or as it relates to this category in particular. Again, I believe that had the old CFD not been linked to the new one whoever remade the category would have never even noticed its absence. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins need a very good reason to ignore a "should" statement. When another admin has already effectively declined a speedy, then I can't imagine what such a reason would be (other than copyvio or BLP issues). DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Actually, no, it's not disputed. A couple of people have said "Gee, that doesn't sound right to me", but no one has actually tried to change the plain text of WP:CSD to amend the meaning. What IS clear, however, is that you, Cow, tagged an article for G4 TWICE. That's disruptive editing: if you disagree with an admin's action (Nyttend) with respect to a G4, approach them on their talk page. The appeal of a speedy decline is XfD, not slapping the same tag back on. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another sad case of the all too often admins acting without discussing, exacerbated by the "awards should be in cats/lists" debate. At least talk is happening now. I just wish both issues would be settled and stop flaring up. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bring in Nyttend

Enough has been said already that I hope that all of you will permit me to start a new subsection.

• First off, Fastily, problems I believe that we've had between us are image-deletion-related; nothing of that has affected this process in my mind.
• As to the wheel warring — it's one thing if I decline a speedy deletion, but another if I delete and then undelete — anyone has the technical ability to decline a speedy deletion, but only admins have the technical ability to undelete or to undo that undeletion; that's why I say that it's wheel warring. I assure you that I did that because I changed my mind on deletion due to DuncanHill's comments; it wasn't because I wanted to be able to accuse a future deleter of wheel warring.
• On the question of categories being subject to G4 — we have a major problem with categories versus other types of pages. Other types of pages can be recreated after XFD if they're substantially different; nobody has a policy-based reason to complain if an article is deleted because it fails to show any evidence of notability and then recreated after several reliable print sources are found and added to the article, or if a navigational template is deleted because it only links two articles and then recreated because ten more articles have been created and thus linked by the new template. With categories, it's hard for the same to be true, since they work so differently; accordingly, I believe that this criterion should be applied more cautiously.
• For this category being G4-able — all of you admins can look at the category as it was when it was deleted the first time versus the way it was when I deleted and then undeleted it. You'll see that the code itself was substantially different; that's the standard by which we judge that other sorts of pages are G4-able, so I came to the conclusion that this page should be judged in the same way. I do not hesitate to delete page X if it's identical to page Y that was deleted at XFD; the thing is that this page was different from Category:Silver Buffalo awardees, not that it had a different name.

Have I addressed everything, or is there something to which I forgot to respond? Someone please let me know if I forgot something. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Jing Ulrich in 2010.JPG

I noticed that you deleted the file "Jing Ulrich in 2010.jpg", but permission for the file had already been registered through a request to OTRS. May I ask what was the reason for the deletion? Kjosh2 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, page restored. Apologies for the inconvenience. I appreciate you letting me know. Regards, FASTILY 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Kjosh2 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sacramento Station

Thanks for taking care of the history merge at Sacramento Station so quickly! Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Best, FASTILY 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Dealing with PA Gov. Election

That was a bizarre encounter. John2510 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just happy to have been able to help. Regards, FASTILY 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi, you deleted File:Carl freer.jpg for a lack of licensing information. If I remember correctly, the uploader, User:Truthmaker1, had claimed that the copyright belonged to Carl Freer. A virtually identical image has now been uploaded by the same user as File:Carl freer 1.jpg. This time the uploader claims to hold the copyright and releases the image under a Creative Commons license. To make matters more interesting, the image has been added to the article by an IP editor who also claims to hold the copyright. I have no idea whether the IP editor, User:Truthmaker1 and Carl Freer are one, two or three persons. I've asked Truthmaker1 for clarification, but he has not yet responded. Should anything be done, and if so, what? Yours, Huon (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I think the file may be possibly unfree/copyrighted. I'll list it at WP:PUF. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards, FASTILY 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I've listed it. Huon (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Hey d***head, you blocked me from editing for "disruptive edits" but i didn't make any disruptive edits. i simply called that little gimp Hitler. Because he was acting like hitler. same way i've called you d***head, because you've acted like a d***head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.231.33 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just Censored "109.155.231.33's" Comments.--intelati 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You, sir are a Man of many firsts. First gave me reviewer, rollback, and now My first barnstar. Thanks, and the only reason I stalk is that I like to learn from the best. ;) --intelati 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel

I noticed you PP'ed Israel because PC stopped working. My understanding is that PC has not been turned off globally. I made a post at ANI to double check. You might want to comment. -Selket 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear in my log entry. I meant to say that PC was exhibiting limited effectiveness at preventing vandalism at Israel. Now of course, if there is consensus to use PC on Israel, I'll gladly revert. -FASTILY 19:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You have just sent me a message accusing me of "vandalizing".

I'm new to edits on Wiki. Vandalizing what, exactly? I made a couple of entirely genuine, reasonable and inoffensive edits to the North London Derby page.

So please enlighten me as to what, exactly, I've done to merit the accusation of vandalism. It might help to prevent me from repeating this apparently heinous crime.

Shelfsider (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to warn another user. My mistake. -FASTILY 20:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts

How many vandalism reverts do I have? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in receiving the rollback right, please know that you will need at least 50 reverts of solid vandalism without having received any significant complaints. Currently, I do not see enough anti-vandalism work to warrant granting rollback to you. If you want the tool, continue working on reverting vandalism as you already have! -FASTILY 23:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with RfC

Hi Fastily, I seem to have really butchered an RfC and am not sure what to do next. The RfC is here: Talk:Homophobia#RFC_for_ongoing_debate_in_this_article and listed here (which I think is the wrong board): Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines. Thanks for any help you can give me. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you might have. The proper place to list the discussion at would have been at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture. Not to worry, I've corrected that issue. The RfC bot will relist the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture shortly. Regards, FASTILY 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, much thanks! RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Travis Bean Deletion

Hey, didn't you see the hang on that I added to the Travis Bean page? Can you explain why you felt the need to delete the page so quickly without any kind of chance for discussion into why it should even be deleted? hellboy (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had another look, and I don't feel like it's beyond salvaging. If you like, I'll restore it to your userspace so you can continue work there. -FASTILY 23:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I recall this was a fairly well-sourced article that had been in place without an advert tag or mention of advertising concerns on the talk page for several years. I feel it should have gone to AfD discussion instead of speedy deletion. It sounds like you think it should not be restored from your above comment. I ask again that you consider restoring the article, and I will remove any advert language within 24 hours. If this doesn't work for you, I'm planning on raising the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Dialectric (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can do that too, although, I'm currently waiting on a response from Hellboy1975. Perhaps maybe you'd like to discuss with him? -FASTILY 23:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've written a note on his talk page regarding this issue. I assume he would prefer the article be restored, even if taken to AfD, over having it stay deleted and copied to his user pages. Dialectric (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I'll keep that in mind. Regards, FASTILY 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see it restored and then edited rather than put in my userpage as well, but am happy to defer to more experienced wikipedia users as to the correct decision. hellboy (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You now have Hellboy1975's response. As I said above, I think there are a number of legitimate reasons for this article to have gone to AfD rather than speedy deletion. Fastily, will you restore the article and create an entry for it in Articles for Deletion? Dialectric (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add Fastily that I realise it wasn't you who nominated the article actually be deleted, I'm just interested in getting what I feel to be a worthwhile page back up and running in a suitable format for wikipedia. hellboy (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So then er, what's the verdict here? Restore as a userspace draft or restore and reslist at AfD? -FASTILY 06:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

hellboy wrote above 'I'd rather see it restored and then edited rather than put in my userpage'. I've written above that I think it should be restored and taken to AfD. I can elaborate on why this is preferable if necessary, but in short, it will be simpler to keep the history and talk page, which go back several years, with a restore, and the call as to whether the entire article was 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion' is questionable. If you are seeing this differently, I'd like to hear your perspective. Dialectric (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To add to that, I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I'd rather not personally be responsible for the page. Though I am willing to assist in making sure it stays on topic. hellboy (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY_sock 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File:IPad Home.png

Per Template:Replaceable_fair_use_disputed, the talk page should not have been deleted and a valid deletion reason should have been given taking into account the fairly lengthy discussion on the talkpage. I think that two users gave quite valid reasons why a free-use image could not be found that properly shows the device.--Terrillja _talk 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really actually. I had another look, and to be honest, I can't say I found any convincing reason to keep the file. But if you like, I can restore the file and list it at FFD. -FASTILY 06:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:99.88.78.94

This user you blocked, who has endless blocks and unblock appeals on the talk page, has used the "my brother/cousin did it" excuse numerous times and has been told numerous times to register an account to avoid that problem. I'd like to keep that option open for this editor, but your block also appears to disable account creation from that IP address (if that's what "account creation blocked" means). I would not presume to modify the block you imposed, so I ask that you consider modifying your block to enable registering an account. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER. I suppose the account creation aspect of the block could be removed, but if 99.88.78.94 is not telling the truth, we could end up with a sockfarm on our hands. Or, we could always assume good faith, unblock, and cross our fingers :) I'm fine with either way though. I'll leave the final decision up to you. Best, FASTILY 06:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Looks like my decline message fell on deaf ears. Another admin came along and fulfilled my promise to block the editor from his own talk page if he posts one more unblock requests. He can create another account if he goes to another IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Travis Bean Guitars

Hello,

I noticed that the section of Original Travis Bean Guitars has been removed. Could you let me know for what reason this is. Travis Bean is a well respected luthier who build great guitars around 1975. Lots of great Mucisians have played Travis Bean guitars an/or still do. The person who claimed the Name Travis Bean and builds guitars under this name produces inferior instruments and is in no way related to the History of Travis Bean and his Guitars. In other words the German person is blatantly copying Travis and his reputation/history/product also he is doing what is called dilution, where as to cause confusion of existing product or service.

I kindly want to ask you to take this in consideration and let me know what you think.

Kind Regards,

JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbuck (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

By any chance would you be referring to Travis Bean? I did a search for "Travis Bean Guitars" but came up empty. -FASTILY 18:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey you...

Fastily, it's been a while since we talked. I just uploaded a logo to the Reinhardt University page. I believe I did it correctly, but wanted to make sure with you - you're the expert. Can you let me know if I need to change something? Thanks Carsonmc (talk)

Looks fantastic. I can't see any issues with File:Reinhardt College Logo.gif. Best, FASTILY 18:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you. If you aren't too swamped, could you put a note to that effect on the discussion page (if not, no worries). I know in the past, there were many, many issues on the old logo. I just don't want someone less experienced than you to remove it. Thanks, again. Hope you are well. Carsonmc (talk)

Can you please tell me why you deleted the InfoPrint Solutions Company page?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.21.100.130 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the page because it was advertising/spam. Per WP:ADS, advertisements/spam are subject to on-sight deletion under speedy deletion criterion G11. -FASTILY 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Image fogged

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=24_Hour_Service_Station&oldid=382760549 The logo image for my record label is now showing as a black box after I sent rights confirmation to permissions at Wikimedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:LOGO24HourServiceStation.jpg I can BARELY make out the image when looking from the side of my monitor, so I know it's still there. Can you help me remove the fog and bring it back to its full black white & red glory? Thanks! Captain New Wave (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about this too. The image shows up fine when you click on the image page File:LOGO24HourServiceStation.jpg but it's all fogged to nearly black in the article 24 Hour Service Station. I've never seen that before. I removed the {{pufc}} template from the image link in the article but it had no effect. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At File:LOGO24HourServiceStation.jpg I'm seeing the "main" image as fogged. The (one) thumbnail looks fine though. Just a drive-by comment - I can't offer any suggestions as to why this is ;-) TFOWR 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Try re-saving the image as either a PNG, or again as a JPEG (but with progressive scan and interlacing turned off in your image program's JPEG settings). That should solve your problem. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

3rd (talk page stalker)! Until you sort it out I replaced it for you in the article with a very quick svg autotrace: File:LOGO24HourServiceStation.svg  Begoon•talk 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1st (talk page stalker) (straying off topic) Hey, that's pretty cool. How'd you do that? I've been looking for some way to convert Excel charts to SVG, and failing to find any solution. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

2nd (talk page stalker) ;-) (straying (staying?) off topic) I'd love to know too. I've been trying to figure out how to do something like that decently for some logos I use for a long time. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rejection

I also posted this on Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Kvng. I assure you, I'm not taking this personally. I'd really rather spend my time creating and improving articles. I want to know what I can do when I multiple-edit vandalism shows up in my watch list.

So, yes, this is not my first rejection. I don't think it is a good use of my time to become a spam fighter. If you're not going to give me the tools to clean this stuff up as I come across it, how do you suggest I summon someone with rollback to clean up Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. It's already too late for rollback on Communications protocol - the vandalism has been is now insidiously integrated into the article. --Kvng (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

question

At ANI it was said that is should wait before I ask for rollback again how long were you and everyone else thinking? I think I have made 50 reverts of VANDALISM with twinkle. Inka 22:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)