User talk:postdlf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PLEASE NOTE: If you are here about an AFD that I closed, I do not provide userspace or draft copies of deleted articles. Please make that request of another admin.
CLICK HERE to add a new message.
West Wind (1891), Winslow Homer
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 14 years, 8 months and 11 days.
Admin mop.PNG This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.
JD This user has a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.
BFA This user has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree.
en This user is a native speaker of English.
Comiclogo.png This user is a member of the Comics Wikiproject.
Okapi2.jpg This user thinks okapis are the coolest animal ever.

Orphaned non-free image File:Spider Widow 1.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Spider Widow 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for review of two recent AfDs[edit]

Applies to:

Hi Postdlf, I just saw that you recently deleted the above mentioned two list articles following your closure of the corresponding AfD.

There are several things that went wrong here, that's why I would appreciate if you could review the whole case and reconsider your decision.

  • Per our established process (WP:AFDLIST) the creator and main contributors of an article should be informed of deletion nominations. I am the creator and main contributor but have not been informed at all. Since I do not normally monitor AfDs I didn't see the nominations and consequently could not provide a rationale for the existance of these list articles. While it is the nominators' duty to inform the creator/contributors of the pending discussion, it is also within the responsibility of the closing admin to check that all the requirements for a proper discussions were met. Obviouly, in this case, checking this has slipped through somehow, that's why I am asking for review.
  • I strongly believe that if I would have been informed and would have partipated in the discussion, the outcome of the discussion would have been completely different, either "Keep" or "No consensus". Not only would I have been able to throw my own vote into the discussion (obviously I do consider this information notable, encyclopedic and perfectly in line with MOS:LIST and WP:STANDALONE, as each of the list entries has been covered in dedicated articles in the media and therefore is WP:NOTABLE which could be backed up by numerous references if required, and after I have gone through the various cases discussed at WP:NOTCATALOGUE I don't see any of them actually applying to this example), but given the reluctant remarks made by some other participants I'm sure my rationale would have convinced the participant who only added a "Comment" and probably also changed several of the "Delete" votes to "Keep". Also, for a deletion this far-reaching and with the second nomination only having been slipped into the discussion at a later stage, I would think that a much stronger participation and vote for "Delete" would have been desirable.
  • Of the very few participants in the discussion, two voters incorrectly stated that the information could be found elsewere. However, they didn't realize, that this only held true because the lists were transcluded into these articles. Now, that the lists have been deleted, the articles (iISO flash shoe, Multi Interface Shoe, Sony α and possibly more) lack this information. It is not without irony that the very reason why these two list articles were created was to reduce redundancy and improve maintainability: Previously, the information about flashes had to be maintained in three independent articles, that's why the information was combined and moved into these list articles, which in turn were transcluded back into those articles, so that the information could be maintained in one place and all articles could be kept up to date automatically with minimal effort.
  • Both list articles had a multitude of redirects linking into them (IIRC dozens), which all have been deleted as well now (also without informing me or without any RfD discussions). As these were valid redirects per WP:REDIR, at the minimum, they should have been retargeted to the other corresponding articles, because deleting them not only wasted my precious time to create them in the first place, but also weakened search box behaviour. The deletion did not serve any purpose in regard to achieving the goal of our project of building the most comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia ever, we didn't do our readers any favour deleting this.
  • All in all, both list articles and the corresponding redirects were a vital part of the established infrastructure in regard to the Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony camera systems and helped explaining the otherwise difficult to understand flash system (because of the many major and subtle consequences of the change of the flash shoe). The list articles were accurate, comprehensive and up to date, they were well maintained including being properly categorized, and what is left now is several articles lacking vital information.

Since the nominations were not carried out properly and consequently the outcome of the discussion was different from what it would have been if I would have participated and if the other participants would have been informed about the purpose of the lists and the far-reaching consequences of their deletion, I would like to ask for undeletion of both list articles.

An alternative to these list articles is to reincorporate the information into the related articles (like it was before splitting out the information into separate lists), however, this will only make it more difficult to maintain the information - and it would cost me weeks to research and recreate the information from scratch again.

Thanks for your kind consideration. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Permission for Photo[edit]

Hello! I am redoing my website and this is the first time I've used wiki commons. I want to make sure I have properly attributed your photo.

On this page, left side I've used your slide rock state park 11 photo, but desaturated it.

Your photo:

My test page:

I used the attribution generator to create the credits. If this is not ok, please let me know any modifications you need :) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirittlk (talkcontribs) 23:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lorenzo Iorio[edit]

User:Redwheel has asked for a deletion review of Lorenzo Iorio. 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. —Cryptic 20:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

List of YouTubers[edit]

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for review of AfD[edit]

Hi - I saw that you deleted the Xtreme Radio page - - I'd like to appeal this, I feel that this page has been unfairly targeted as a lot of UK Student Stations have Wikipedia articles, and Xtreme is notable in being the third oldest student radio organisation in the UK. It's also notable in winning multiple Student Radio Association awards, backed by BBC Radio 1. I feel there should be one rule for all student radio, either all the pages are deleted, or Xtreme Radio is allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Thanks Icecold (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Clarence Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to SEC
2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Elena Kagan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to SEC
2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sonia Sotomayor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to SEC
2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Stephen Breyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to SEC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

List of birds of the Madrean Sky Islands[edit]

Hello Postdlf: I've been working my way through the (massive) WP:Birds cleanup listing, trying to resolve some of the longterm issues, and today came across the list of birds of the Madrean Sky Islands, which you created way back in 2009. You created it with an unreferenced tag already in it. ??? Did you get this information from somewhere, or are they your personal observations? If the former, can you please provide a reference? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I created it from a category I had nominated for deletion; see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 11#Category:Birds of the Madrean sky islands. User:Mmcannis had created that category and populated it (as well as many similar categories), so they would be the best person to ask about sources. postdlf (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay; thanks! MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, and for the record I have no opinion on the validity of the list either way, so if you do end up nominating it for deletion you don't even need to notify me. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:“Vrindadevi reveals the secrets of Bhakti”, by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1990, Pune.jpg[edit]

Hello postdlf: I remember you could help me before when it came to the usage of artworks in articles. I hope you can advise me in the current, following case:

Some files/images of paintings by Artist Mumbiram, which I had uploaded on Mumbiram’s Wikipedia page are marked for deletion.

These are the concerning files for which an objection has been taken:

File:“Vrindadevi reveals the secrets of Bhakti”, by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1990, Pune.jpg
File:“Radha Svadheenbhartrika (Radha has Krishna to herself in a favourable mood)” by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1995, Pune.jpg
File:Lakhu, 1985, Gouache Watercolour by Mumbiram.jpg
File:”Chitalyanchi Soon” (Daughter-in-law of the Chitale Family ), by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1982,.jpg
File:“Marathi Poets 1982”, by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1982.jpg
File:”Not by bread alone - Kusum making chapattis”, by Mumbiram, Charcoal, Pune 1990.jpg
File:“Kusum brings her Mother Sakhrabai to visit the Artist”, by Mumbiram, Charcoal, 1984, Pune.jpg
File:„Gokula dreaming of India“ by Mumbiram, Oil on canvas, 1988, Japan.jpg
File:Drupada is coming out of the river with Mumbiram, Watercolor, by Mumbiram, 1990.jpg
File:“Red haired amateur palmist girl reading Krishna’s fortune near Govardhan”, by Mumbiram, Gouache Watercolor, Seattle 1976.jpg
File:“Alice Cooper washing Mumbiram’s Hair”, by Mumbiram, Ink-and-brush, Seattle 1975.jpg

The images against which the objection has been taken, appear on Mumbiram's current homepage,

In similiar circumstances, for files that are used on the wikipedia page “Mumbiram“ and “Rasa Renaissance“, I have obtained a letter from Artist Mumbiram, creator of the original works (paintings), where he is giving his permission to use the creative commons attribution for these low resolution images of the paintings. Therein artist Mumbiram has cited his own homepage as evidence that he is the creator of the paintings. These are the four images for which an OTRS permission was given and which are attributed with Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic:

File:Rasa Art, "Meeting by the Stream", Watercolor by Mumbiram.jpg

Artist Mumbiram is ready to write an email declaring that he is allowing the use of the concerning low resolution jpeg images of his original paintings as in creative commons license. Could you tell me to whom he addresses such an email ? So that the objections against the uploaded images will be withdrawn.

Thank you. Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)