Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 16 March 2012

User talk:Fastily/header

Request for pemissions/confirmed

Hi, You questioned about the copyrights of the pictures I wanted to upload in a certain wikipedia article. Those are my photos which I myself took. Photos of cityskape, skylines, historical buildings, human activities etc of my city. I am new to wikipedia. What's the difference between uploading directly to wikipedia and by wikimedia commons?? I am willing to share my photos all over the world, but in wikimedia commons it is said that anyone can use it commercially. I am not that interested in commercial use of my photos unless they formally ask permission to me first. So am I supposed to ulpoad it directly to wikipedia (not wikiemdia commons?). sorry for my stupid question I am so confused here in wikipedia, so many new things

Harimaumacan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Request for deletion review

Hi Fastily

I noticed you deleted the page for "microcinema" claiming (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://mubi.com/garage/projects/9)

However, it appears that, in fact, the Garage Digital page on mubi copied its text from the wikipedia entry, not the other way around. Compare the following archive.org snapshots:

From 2009 - the entry for "microcinema" at that time http://web.archive.org/web/20091214135907/http://en.wikipedia.org/Microcinema

From 2010 - the former site for Garage Digital http://web.archive.org/web/20100706185248/http://mubi.com/garage/projects/9

It appears that Garage didn't post their text until after the middle of 2010, at which point it had already been in existence on wikipedia.

It's an understandable mistake, but it appears that this deletion shouldn't have happened. Could you un-do it?

Best, --Visualpleasure (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily,

You recently closed a deletion discussion of several bookcover photos which I uploaded.

You deleted the photos although every one of them was accompanied by newspaper articles, direct quotes to those news articles, and
in-line citations to those news articles. This critical commentary existed for each and every photo. As such, all of these photos met the WP:NFC#UUI "critical commentary" standard.

I pointed this fact out repeatedly in the discussion. Also, if you look at the article where these photos were placed, you will see exactly what I mean.

Each and every photo correlated to extensive critical commentary, from sources such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, Library Journal...the list goes on and on.

Could you review this matter when you get a chance, and re-consider the deletion? I would greatly appreciate it, and thank you for your time. Below is the list of photos.

File:LIVE RR LittleBook.jpg
File:Leibowitz.jpg
File:Roomftd.jpg
File:Farm&m.jpg
File:Be a road.jpg
File:Butlerian.jpg

Thanks again,
Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily's deletion summary for all of them reads "textbook violation of WP:NFCC" and that's exactly what it looks like: photos of lots of books in a list of books, which is identical to WP:NFC#UUI §2 on discographies. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that is your view but at FFD Nelsondenis248 has given a contrary view of the way policy should be applied by quoting the same policy document as yourself. Do you think the policy-based consensus of the discussions was "delete"? It does not look like that to me. Thincat (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that User:Fastily deleted all six photos, in just one minute of time. It is highly unlikely that he read the article , or read all the critical commentary in that article, or even read the deletion discussion itself.

I find this disturbing since I spent hours locating those photos, uploading them, and writing the critical commentary. Now I'm wasting more hours in these deletion discussions. I may go to WP:DRV, I may go to WP:AN/I, but it is all very tedious and disappointing. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#3a: the number of non-free images should be kept as small as possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, can't help but notice this discussion. I've been working in the image venue long before I became an administrator—and I've been one for nearly two and a half years—so I thought I'd chip in as I was uninvolved in this discussion. Fastily's deletions were spot on. What the first point of WP:NFCI requires is that the cover art itself be subject to critical commentary to merit its inclusion. This wouldn't apply if the covers were being used in the infobox of the articles about the books themselves, but that wasn't the case here.

And for the record, deleting six images in one minute can be done by opening the images in multiple tabs, clicking the delete button and switching to the next tab seconds later. Being an administrator, I think it's safe to assume that Fastily read the discussion in its entirety. — ξ 07:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. For myself, I am not so much questioning the deletion as the way the FFD was closed. We were told "The result of the discussion was: Delete" and I do not think this was a supportable conclusion. I understand Fastily deleted on NFCC grounds, outside the discussion, triggering Anomiebot's message. However, those not familiar with FFD will have no way of understanding this and an explanation would have been helpful. I accept your remark "the cover art itself be subject to critical commentary to merit its inclusion" reperesents consensus at FFD but, of course, that is not what WP:NFC says which is "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." It is commentary on the covered item that is (wrongly) being referred to. There is no reasonable way to take the sentence as meaning that the "item" and the "cover art" are the same thing. So again, people do not understand that the policy has been worded wrongly, and explanation (such as you have given) is helpful. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment that Fastily should have left a closing rationale on the FFD page as the discussion doesn't seem like a clear 'delete' result, and doing so can help any users who come across the discussion in the future. As for WP:NFC, I actually never felt the wording may cause confusion up until now. Your concern is a valid one, and bringing it up on WT:NFC may encourage the rewording of that section. — ξ 03:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am confused...

Hi Fastily, I am a bit confused with what you have done to my page... It has G8 mark on it. And I do not understand why.

Could you please explain :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azbukva (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Link the page in question. It's unclear what you're referring to. -FASTILY 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hoaxer?

Hi Fastily. You may recall your comment here regarding the persona 'Kraisit Agnew', which has been repeatedly deleted. Seems there is a determined effort to promote this apparent hoax. Is an SPI necessary or can more immediate action be taken to stop this disruption? You may also remember my previous request on this topic. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted history of that article, I'm not seeing evidence of blatant socking. At any rate, you've taken the appropriate action by warning User:Lifeofmagnificent. If they continue to introduce hoaxes, please let me know and I'll block them. -FASTILY 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for reply. RashersTierney (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

EFC Africa

EFC Africa - This wasn't "my" page, and I'm not interested in this or any other sport, but I believe it was a mistake to delete the page. I believed that then, and more so now. The article regarded a very popular sport in South Africa, and, despite that popularity, there is no representation on Misplaced Pages for anyone seeking further information. The artcile was deleted, from what I can recall of the discussion, due to its not being "notable" enough. I was reminded to voice my objection to its deletion by this article, which, surely, identifies the topic as at least "notable:"

http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/EFC-AFRICA-smashes-TV-ratings-20120315

Thanks for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

EFC Africa was a redirect page to Extreme Fighting Championship Africa. I don't believe I'm the admin you're looking for. -FASTILY 20:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you deleted just the redirect page? Thanks - I'll take it up with User:Black Kite.briantw (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Leonard padilla.ogg

Yes that file is on Commons but if you delete the local file before the license is fixed on Commons it may be hard for non-admins to see what the correct license is. And the {{Spoken article entry}} is even worse to correct. So perhaps you could not delete files like that before the information is corrected on Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh great... I suppose I'll get started on manually fixing them. Thanks for the note. -FASTILY 20:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

deleted page Dabgarwad Massacre

04:49, 13 March 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Dabgarwad Massacre (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/209792/) The page is actually a supreme court judgement's citation. www.indiankanoon.org does not own copyright on it. It is merely reprinting citation. If quotations from citation is a copyright violation then i can easily write it in my own words. Please let me know. --Unbiasedpov (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough -FASTILY 20:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Reg Cox.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Reg Cox.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, we're all wondering why you restored these images. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject EastEnders#Deletion review for File:Reg Cox.jpg for discussion and confusion! –anemoneprojectors– 14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, the discussion was there, just hidden and I didn't see it. George Ho is the person I need to speak to. –anemoneprojectors– 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Kohmi Hirose

Please restore this page. She has two records that sold over a million copies (Romance no Kamisama has 1.75 million units sold, THE BEST “Love Winters” sold 2.4 million) and multiple mentions of her and her music across the project. It should have never been prodded.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Already done by User:Tiptoety -FASTILY 08:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

SAP implementation and SAP Implementation

While working on orphan talk pages, I noticed that you deleted both of these articles as redirects to non-existant pages. Can you review the deletions? Upon looking at the article history of SAP implementation, 65.91.151.194 made a test edit that made it look like a bad redirect. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Restored My bad, thanks for letting me know. -FASTILY 08:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article undeletion request.

Dear Fastily. This is my first article, so I have a lot to learn about wikipedia. Hopefully you can help me with any advice on how to rectify this situation.

I think my article Ben Parcell was deleted unfairly and did not constitute any copyrighted material. I have explicit permission to use the information taken from the Biography section of the Facebook section from the artist. http://www.facebook.com/benparcellmusic/info under the creative commons license.

The reference you linked (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/undiscovered.php) which contains some material of the biography is copied from the original biography and was used a link to importance of the musician that he had been played on commercial radio and not a citation to the primary biography. I would like you to restore the page and I will add the reference http://www.facebook.com/benparcellmusic/info which will avoid any copyright issues.

Thanks Acousticscene (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Minako Hamano

Hi, could I get a copy of the article I wrote on Minako Hamano? I need the info for another project. See below. Thanks.

00:24, 18 February 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Minako Hamano (Expired PROD, concern was: No interviews or biographies available to expand/source the article) Pkeets (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found my copy. Pkeets (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test

Hello, will you restore this page please? I know it had an in-progress (or something) template on it but I did not think that inactivity of a month would allow it to be deleted, unless someone else tagged it for deletion. Eventually, we were going to rework the page a bit, and I was using this as a sandbox, it is even referenced on the talk page. I have a dynamic IP and all of the 64.85.xxxx edits to that page were me. I'll be sure to remove the in-progress template once it is restored so as to avoid any further confusion. Thanks, --64.85.214.174 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please create an account to edit? I'll restore the deleted page as a userspace draft where you can work on it. This sandbox really does not belong as a subpage of a mainspace talk page. -FASTILY 21:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)