User talk:Fastily: Difference between revisions

File:ELOBBC.jpg

Hello. You deleted the above file a few months ago. I am handling OTRS ticket:2017042610025743, which appears to be about this file. Whilst there is no permission in the email, because they’ve asked the wrong person, I believe this image could be used under fair use in the infobox of The BBC Sessions (Electric Light Orchestra album). Please could you restore it and I will make the necessary amendments? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Green Giant.  Done. Also edited it so that that only the source and article name are still missing. Regards, FASTILY 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thsnk you for doing that. Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png

Hi Fastily. You deleted File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png per WP:F5, but it's possible that there might be an OTRS ticket to cover this file per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png. The same OTRS ticket might also be applcable to two of the files being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I'm not seeing permission for File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png in ticket:2011011410009399. And unless I've missed something, the ministry didn't mention anything about the copyright status of the signs, so I'm not certain this ticket is valid for the files which were explicitly named in it. Anyways, here's the file and its description page for reference. Regards, FASTILY 05:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Commons DR was closed by c:User:Yann mainly based upon the !vote of another OTRS volunteer named c:User:Jeff G. that the ticket should cover the sign shown in the file. FWIW, another Commons admin c:User:Jcb did also express similar reservations about the ticket. Now, I'm not trying to start a war between Wikipedia and Commons or Wikipedia admins or Commons admins, but if File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png is going to be accepted as OK by Commons, then accepting the same file minus the number 16 also seems logical for the same reason. There are other non-free files of the same Yellowhead shield imagery upload as non-free such as File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg and File:Yellowhead.png, and the licensing of these files may also be affected by the close of the Commmons DR. If the Commons file is OK (a big if perhaps), then someone can basically create a free equivalent for File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway.png by simply removing the 16; something similar can be done for the other non-frees showing the same imagery, which means no non-free would pass NFCC#1. Just to make it clear, I'm not saying you have to "undelete" the file; just trying to point out that there appears to be a difference of opinion on this, which in turn might create some unnecessary complications regarding how the files may be used on Wikipedia. It would be best if Commons and Wikipedia could agree on these types of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Anarkali Marikar, click from movie Vimaanam, December 2017.jpg

Hi, could you undelete this image File:Anarkali Marikar, click from movie Vimaanam, December 2017.jpg so that it can be used in the article Anarkali Marikar as a photograph. Thank you. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Let There Be Sunshine. This has already been explained to you, here. -FASTILY 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Aeni theme songs

Hello. Could you undelete this template? Because this template is using in El Lady (album). I don't know why it was deleted. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes,  Done -FASTILY 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lloyd's Open Form

Hi, I note that in December 2017 you deleted a page called "Lloyd's Open Form". I would like to restore and update it. Please could you show me where the text of the deleted page may be found? Thanks. Arrivisto (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done as a contested PROD. Courtesy ping for @MPS1992 -FASTILY 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy ping, it's much appreciated. No objections at all to this. It will need more references if it is to survive, but also I might forget to check back on it anytime in the foreseeable future. MPS1992 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

G13

Hi, and thank you for your work on the backlogs. I would however appreciate it if you don't make any automatic deletions of abandoned drafts. Of course, the deleting admin is under no formal obligation to review the content they delete, but in many cases they're the only link in the chain capable of doing that: the decline of an AfC submission is most often done by a single editor, whose view might not always align with the community, there is no process for subsequently scrutinising rejected drafts, and the G13-tagging itself is done by a bot. – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala. Your "warning" (assuming that's what you meant) makes no sense. On one hand you accuse me of automation, but yet on the other hand you state "the deleting admin is under no formal obligation to review ". Well that seems awfully contradictory. Fortunately for us, neither of these is true. Furthermore, I don't even do the majority of G13's, so I can't imagine why you've singled me out. Bottom line is this: if you don't like G13, then start an RfC. Complaining about how horrible it is to me isn't a productive exercise because I can't do anything about it. -FASTILY 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There's one thing that you can do and it is to stop any (semi-)automatic deletions of G13-tagged drafts. Your help is much appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you did not read a word of my previous reply to you. If you're going to do this, then we have nothing to discuss. Regards, FASTILY 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should have provided more detail. My initial post was simply to draw your attention to a fact you might not have been aware of. I'm sorry if the phrase "automatic deletion" doesn't describe what you do the way you see it. Feel free to use any other word you see fit, but the process I saw (and which led me here in the first place) was a deletion log where you regularly delete several dozens of drafts per minute. Of course this doesn't imply you don't review them (it's conceivable you review them carefully, decline the speedy tags of the ones you see as having potential and then delete the rest in one go), but then for the period I examined you have no edits to the draft namespace to testify you ever do to a draft anything other than deletion. And when I recently described this precise situation (without naming anyone) I was accused of implying that admins are too dumb to postpone deletion or recognize worthy content [1] This shows that, regardless of the absence of formal obligation, there is a strong community expectation that an admin will examine the content of a draft before deleting it. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If the word "review" is a source of misunderstanding, I have so far taken it as obvious that it does not mean "check if G13 applies", it means "check if the draft is on a notable topic and has potential". – Uanfala (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)