User talk:Fastily

Why was EPiServer Deleted?

Check here http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/default.aspx?page=1&sortby=2&orderby=1&q=&id=0&lid=2618 You can see it's about the 25th fastest growing tech It exists it's real

Sony Magic Link

Thanks for the feedback on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SonyMagicLink.jpg, I forwarded the email from the copyright holder providing permission to use the image file to permissions-en-at-wikipedia.org as requested. Please advise if there is anything further I should do, I want to get the image cleared before beginning a revision of the article on Magic Link ejly (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the file with {{OTRS pending}}. If the email you sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org is adequate, then the deletion notice will be removed, and an OTRS ticket number added in its place. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, fyi the text of the email is posted in the discussion section for the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:SonyMagicLink.jpg. I understand that the deletion may occur after a week normally does tagging the file with OTRS pending postpone that? Or will the review (usually) take less than a week? ejly (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review is fairly quick. If the email is adequate, then the permission should be confirmed within 72 hours. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, I've got the page on watch so will look for the permission soon. ejly (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please undelete Candace Otto

Hi, I saw you deleted Candace Otto as the result of an expired prod... I can't have been watching too closely because I missed it and would have improved the referencing etc on the article if I knew it was about to be deleted. Otto is notable as a state titleholder and Miss America delegate, and if you give me the chance I will be able to reference the article to show her notability. Cheers PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not WP staff, I would think that permission of use would be required. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, fair enough - I have restored the article. Thank you for offering to clean it up. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I have now tidied it up and improved the referencing. I'm just curious as to why you deleted it as non-notable when there were clearly plenty of references at the bottom of the page? Sure the style was wrong and there were no urls but it was fairly easy to discover plenty of news coverage etc. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koda Kumi Discography

why do you keep deleting the 2nd weeks sales and platinum certification from Koda Kumi's album "Universe" in her discography and say its unconstructive?!? -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duphin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:iPhone.png

Hello again, Fastily. Please restore File:iPhone.png. I did some work to make it less copyright infringing. I will need to work on it some more. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NerdyScienceDude. Dimming the entire photo doesn't exactly work in terms of copyright - the file would still be non-free. No worries though, I have uploaded a new version of the photo, with the screen blacked out. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs to be done now is to restore the image's talk page. Could you please do it? Thanks. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 13:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Xeno just did it. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can come up with a better picture, though. What about custom icons on a custom skin (all CC-licensed)? (Is that only possible thru jailbreaking?) –xeno^talk 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity

Why is a page consisting only of links to diffs, with no commentary whatsoever, considered an "attack page", but this is perfectly acceptable?—Chowbok ☠ 03:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that page because obviously the community doesn't approve of it. The diff on Wildhartlivie's page isn't really any better. Although it looks like preparation for some ANI/RFC page/post, the offending text is no longer on the page. At any rate, the MfD is justified. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a speedy of that page also be justified?—Chowbok ☠ 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How frigging disingenuous. You have to go back 10 days to find a version of a page that page does not exist in that form now, it has been hugely changed. Please look at the page as it currently exists: User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox. Because your pages have been deleted does not give you free license to misrepresent something as your post does. Couple that with the fact that you nominated it for deletion 4 full minutes after your attack page was deleted reflects poorly on intent here. Can we say retaliation? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So by your logic, blanking that page I had would have been acceptable?—Chowbok ☠ 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dude. You must be wearing out your mouse clicking back and forth between all these pages and making posts designed to flay me. My logic is to ask Fastily if he can please blank the history on that page, since it is titled a sandbox page that would be at risk of being deleted again if were deleted as recreation of a deleted page. Is that possible, Fastily? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is not possible, and the article was deleted, and then you used the same namespace for unrelated purposes, I would not submit it for deletion. I realize "Sandbox" is pretty generic namespace, and I don't think it'd be fair to not ever let you use it again.—Chowbok ☠ 06:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when a page that has the same name is recreated, the most valid reason to re-delete it is as a recreation of a previously deleted page. I've never not seen that be successful. I didn't say you would nominate it, that applies to anyone for any reason. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is possible, per WP:CSD#U1. Would you like me to do that for you? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would, thanks so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guestbook

Where is your guestbook? NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never quite got around to creating one. I guess I should do that sometime. :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unresolved unfree images claiming to be free

there are some images here at wikipedia that claim to be free but war rejected by the admins on commons.Discussions on commons(perma version), on wikipedia--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality?

I'm curious how this file is low quality?--Rockfang (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackpool-GKER.JPG

Dear Fastily, I think you might be over-interpreting the US copyright law with respect to old anonymous photographic material. The work in question was created prior to 1923 - the subject matter proves this. It was subsequently published in 1938 in a European magazine. I believe therefore that in both US and European law, the image is in the public domain.

Regards Oxonhutch (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Log

The result of the discussion was: Delete; the work was not published prior to 1923, as the uploader states. For an image to be in the public domain in the US, it must have been published prior to 1923. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Blackpool-GKER.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

"Although published anonymously in 1938, and thus in the public domain in the EU, the photograph itself predates 1923 as the locomotive does not bear the mark of the successor company (the London Midland and Scottish Railway {LMS}". The way I see it, you say so yourself that the file was not published prior to 1938. So I'll ask you again: where was the file first published and in what year was it first published? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time you have asked me by-the-way. Except with a (PD-US) template - which was not the right one, I now see - I did not, in my text, state that it was 'published' prior to 1938, I merely stated that it was created by an anonymous photographer some time between 1909 and 1922 - more than likely, looking at the clothes worn, the former. None of this precludes it from having been published between these dates after it was photographed. Oxonhutch (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion: Deerhound Kendra

Please restore this image, or at least have the courtesy to explain why it appears (see Deerhound page box with name still present)has been deleted, please read carefully the history and status I supplied below. There has been no "debate". We cannot, despite repeated efforts, contact the original photographer. If against all odds we do - given that she may well be deceased - what are the requirements to prove her acquiesence? If she has died, what then? Thank you--Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<<File:Deerhound Fernhill's Kendra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Delete; licence and author claimed by uploader are disputed because the source clearly gives credit to Linda Lundt as the photographer, which is neither the uploader or author as claimed and no permission has been given by the photographer. ww2censor (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps it was originally incorrectly entered (under the wrong category?) by me personally. The photo has been (unchallenged) on the Wiki Deerhound page since July 2008. It was cropped, distorting the proportions and changing the colour by a third party, September 2009. I reposted it shortly after that. The original photo of Fernhill's Kendra has been in our possession since the mid 1990's, and has been on our website since 2001. It has also been in at least one book, and a number of magazines in that period. We (at Fernhill) always credit material to the original author - which we have done on our website, to which the Wiki file refers. We have tried to contact the photographer years ago without any luck, as we will be using this photo in our own book on the Deerhound. I would strongly suggest that this photograph is in the public domain and has been properly credited.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)>>

"We have tried to contact the photographer years ago without any luck, as we will be using this photo in our own book on the Deerhound. I would strongly suggest that this photograph is in the public domain and has been properly credited." You suggest, but you don't know for sure. That was the why the file was originally listed at WP:PUF; the copyright status of the file was uncertain/unverifiable. If you had known for sure, I wouldn't have deleted the file. On Wikipedia, we cannot openly host/store/dispense files whose copyright status we are unsure of. Should you ever hear back from the original author, please feel free to re-upload the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question, if she has died, what then?--Richard Hawkins (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Converter Max

Thank you for speed deleting the article. Unfortunately, the same user inserted the article again. --CE 62.178.80.242 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted again, this time by NarlinWiki. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hood

Fastily, I left you and another editor a message in re: Mary Hood images on my talk page (see Image Deletion). Thanks for your continuous efforts to make Wikipedia great. Carsonmc (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse 911 Page

Hi,

You recently deleted the Reverse 911 page. REVERSE 911(r) is NOT a generic term although it is sometimes used as one. Much like Kleenex and Coca Cola, it refers to a specific product owned and trademarked by one company.

I work for the company that owns and actively patrols the trademark for REVERSE 911(r). I was reading some of the links here and, after discussing the matter with our Legal department as well as the Marketing VP, we would like to request that the page for REVERSE 911 be locked so that no one can create a page for it.

Is this something you can do for us or can you direct me to someone who can assist me?

Should you need to reach me, I would be happy to supply my name and contact information but I hesitate to post it here.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalindria (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to "info-en@wikimedia.org" and tell them what you just told me. They may be able to assist you or answer any questions you may have. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Nightmarebeforexmas200px.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nightmarebeforexmas200px.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wynton Marsalis 2009 09 13.jpg

Hey,

I saw you deleted File:Wynton Marsalis 2009 09 13.jpg. The uploader told me he sent the permissions in vai e-mail when the deletion tag was added (See my talk page). Any idea if these permissions were ever received? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I have asked an OTRS volunteer to look into it. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question re. WP:SELDEL

Hi Fastily, I was wondering if [1] and [2] would qualify for either WP:SELDEL or WP:REVDEL due to the nature of the content they introduced to the article (diff here). I had initially emailed User:Alison about oversighting it but she hasn't replied yet. User:Ronhjones and myself have searched for any coverage of this in the news and have found nothing, so it's pretty obvious that it's a hoax, and a pretty bad violation of WP:BLP at that. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite the BLP violation. Yes, per Oversight Policy, if applicable, the diffs can be removed. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the proper channel to go through to get this done? Or do I just message an oversighter? I was under the impression you didn't need oversight permissions to do a selective deletion or revision deletion. XXX antiuser ^eh? 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To request oversight, send an email to oversight here (process detailed at WP:RFO), or contact an oversighter directly. Hope that helps to answer your question. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFC/R

I always use that template for article submissions, but I'll admit I've never even considered using it for simple redirects- I'll try and remember. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't use the script so I often forget. I'll try and use it more often from now on though. fetchcomms☛ 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:CheeseFacedLlama

[3] This user is indefinitely blocked, and has abused his/her talk page privileges. I was restoring the block template, are indef blocked users allowed to remove block templates from their talk pages? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened here. A user noticed that CheeseFacedLlama kept abusing their talkpage privileges and reported it to WP:RFPP, then you saw it and assumed that I was vandalizing their talk page. I'm going to go ahead and undo your edit now if you don't mind. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take it easy - I'm on your side here! I neglected to go through the diffs, so my bad, but surely, there's no need to get angry!! :\ At any rate, I have disabled talk page access for CheeseFacedLlama (talk · contribs) so I don't think we'll have any more trouble from them anymore. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my message came off as gruff, I was just greatly confused by your edit summary.

I understand exactly what happened. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhardt College

Fastily, I think someone is vandelizing the Reinhardt College page. See latest edit about a Cobb County baseball player. It appears this ip made another vandelized comment on the "Death" page. Can you do something about this? Thanks, Carsonmc (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend took care of it. Thanks.Carsonmc (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Image

Could you please undelete this image? I would like to add licensing info to it. File:Durham, Ontario Location.png... I'm not sure if I was ever informed that it was missing. DMighton (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course!

Done Thanks for offering fix the copyright status of the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all fixed. DMighton (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to consider my message

Hello,

I am a newbie in posting info on Wikipedia, and I really need your help man.

I have seen from the deletion log that you deleted the post "Popfax (internet fax service)" because of (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion).

I wanted just to present the company as many other companies do, please consider the following service competitors that are listed on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFax_%28fax_service%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efax_%28software%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RingCentral

Could you please suggest me some ideas, how to publish info about the Popfax service, not to be considered an unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best regards, Iulia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulia e (talk • contribs) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hey, Fastilly- the rollback request page has severap new entries that hoven't been answered. When you have a moment, could you check it out? Thanks E2eamon (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E2eamon. It looks like Acalamari already filled most of the requests.....oh well. Thanks for letting me know anyways. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Photos and question

Fastily, added new photos you might want to consider for the Commons at Rufus M. Rose House, Baltimore Block, and on National Register of Historic Places listings in Fulton County, Georgia. Question, too: If you look at the Rufus M. Rose House page, last external link, you can find a 1903 picture of the house. I know this is before 1923 copyright restrictions, could this photo be added to the page? It would be a great addition, showing what the house originally looked like. I tried to link the photo to the page, bypassing the copyright issue, but cannot figure out how to do that (or to source, if I uploaded it to Wiki) -when I tried, it linked to the home page, rather than the photo page. Are we, Wikipedians, not allowed to post that picture as it's part of the Vanishing Georgia archives? How does that work with pre-1923 photos? Make sense? Thanks, Carsonmc (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; I'll tag the applicable files for transfer to Commons. Before 1923 and taken in the US? That should be just fine. I recommend uploading directly to Wikipedia - last I checked, the mediawiki interface does not support external linking of files (to display). That being said, feel free to upload the file. If you run into any trouble, or need assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wynton Marsalis 2009 09 13.jpg

A photo was taken down because Wikepedia did not have the proper permissions to post it. My coworker released it into the public domain so that it could be used by Wikipedia. This appears to have been verified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wynton_Marsalis_2009_09_13.jpg)

Gordonrox says that I should ask you about restoring the photo to Wynton Marsalis' page. I could certainly do it myself, if that is okay.

Thanks!

BMW (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply here. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet rank pictures

Can you help me. I need my files to be undeleted. They should not have been. The person that marked them for deletion never responded to my message about why they should not be. Can you please help me out here? --Flans44 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'd be happy to help you out. But first, could you please provide me with the name(s) of the deleted/affected file(s)? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I just need to change the copyright information. The files are:

STTOS Starfleet Vice Admiral rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Rear Admiral rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Commodore rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Captain rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Commander rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Fleet Admiral rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Lieutenant Commander rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Lieutenant rank.jpg STTOS Starfleet Lieutenant Junior Grade rank.jpg --Flans44 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, I deleted your files because they were listed at WP:PUF for 14 days and the deletions were uncontested at the end of the 14 days (see here). You should have contested the deletions on the PUF page when you had the chance. No worries though, I can restore the files, but could you please tell me which license (see here for a full list of licenses compatible with Wikipedia) you intend to use for them? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on this. I thought I was contesting it with the person that submitted them for deletion on my talk page. I wasn't aware that it had to be done elsewhere. I'm not much of a pro at this obviously. The licensing that I will use would be "non-free fair use" as are other images from the article. Please let me know if that will work. Thanks! --Flans44 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Ethernet Leased Line

HI Fastily,

Regarding the TIME ethernet leased line page that i have created, i have no intention on promoting or advertising the product.I created it just for knowledge and information for all user to read. Hope that you can recreate or undelete it as i am redirecting the page to the Internet In Malaysia page. I think it would be more appropriate if all the reference are from wikipedia itself. That is the reason i created it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanhenry14 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Ethernet Leased Line

Hi Fastily,

Thank you so much for replying immediately. I will change the text on the article as not to look more on advertising or spam.Thank you so much for your advise on this.Peace be upon you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanhenry14 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]