Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 15 August 2010

User talk:Fastily/header

Regarding deletion of Avia Solutions Group

Hi. I was about to use the hangon tag suggested, unfortunately, my article was already deleted... I want to argue that this is not an advertising article based on the following reasons:

• Avia Solutions Group was mentioned in other articles (as Avia Solutions Group or as its previous names flyLAL Group or flyLAL Group Services).
• It is mentioned also in the pages of Lithuanian Misplaced Pages as it's a Lithuanian compnay (hopefully, soon a page for Lithuanian portal is made as well).
• Avia Solutions Group is the continuation of development of Lithuanian aviation sector: Lithuanian Aviation --> Lithuanian Airlines (the only state-owned airline in Lithuania) --> flyLAL - Lithuanian Airlines (privatized; bancrupt) --> Avia Solutions Group (uniting all other companies that were created reorganizing Lithuanian Airlines).
• Introduction of Avia Solutions Group brings structure to currently scattered and stand-alone articles (although long-timers on Misplaced Pages) of such companies as Avia Asset Management, Small Planet Airlines (even more in Lithuanian portal).

I hope I proved my point that this article is not from thin air but rather helps covering a few holes currently in Misplaced Pages content. If you still don't appreciate certain parts of the article, please indicate them. But can you please undelete it for now? --MilesToCover (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll restore the content to a userspace draft for you so you can continue work. How does that sound? -FASTILY 20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you restore the item as published? Or are there some specific changes you want me to do to the article? --MilesToCover (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the page to User:MilesToCover/Avia Solutions Group. If you want my opinion, I recommend removing the sections titled "Business Activities", "Structure" and "Facts". All these sections are highly promotional in nature and are against our guidelines on spam/advertising. Once you have revised the article, feel free to move it to the article space. -FASTILY 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Geocities vs oocities

Please note that Geocities has been shut down by Yahoo. Some folks (or organization - I don't know) made a full clone of geocities webpages into oocities and is available for reference. You may search for other pages that have links to oocities and get a feel of the change. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that Geocities had been shut down. Thank you for letting me know. Regards, FASTILY 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I found that not everything was archived! :-( :-( Our pages have been archived, which also includes content which are referenced in some Misplaced Pages pages, can be found at oocities. Unfortunately not all are found (as I later found, especially this M. D. Ramanathan link). So, it is a tough task... The updatehelper though is probably a bot that is changing all geocities to oocities. Hope it saves time for you to concentrate on other plans and tasks you may have. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it troubling that the person behind Updatehelper's bot, who speaks English no better than the English on the oocities.com website, is making hundreds of changes despite several people's protests -- and that two admins who have blocked the changes swiftly unblocked them purely on the grounds that geocities is no more. Geocities pages are much more reliably harbored at Archive.org than at oocities.com, a website of unknown origin and only intermittent availability. Here are some other objections to his actions.

• Oocities has copyright issues such that WP:COPYLINK forbids links to it.

• "Geocities links can be redirected quite easily using Checklinks. Tedious as a human job, but likely possible with a well-thought-out bot. Once they've been changed to point to this mirror, Checklinks is no longer an option. It's worth seriously considering whether this action is going to cause even more work down the road. " (quotingUser:Katherine)

• If somebody wants to provide reliable links to vanished geocities pages, it would be very simple to make a bot to change "geocities.com/blablabla" not to "oocities.com/blablaba" but to "web.archive.org/web/*/geocities.com/blablabla". Just for example, there was a not-working link to a geocities that now points to a sporadically working oocities page, which says:

"Sorry, "http://www.oocities.com/fisher4senate/fisher4NJsenate.html" is not available yet.

But the following Archive Link maybe leads you to the site you tryed to visit

web.archive.org/web/*/geocities.com/fisher4senate/fisher4NJsenate.html"

I don't know if another ANI should be filed or how to invite wider discussion. I am sure UpdateHelper's changes are well-intentioned but I am much less sure that they benefit Misplaced Pages in the long run. betsythedevine (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (Added: I did file a new ANI to get wider perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Bot_making_hundreds_of_links_to_oocities.com.2C_when_links_to_Archive.org_would_be_better betsythedevine (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Further to my comments at the AN thread, I carried out another mass reversion. The editor should not continue the task until it has consensus and approval. FYI Fastily, there is a great little script that helps with mass rollback tasks like this (follows) –xeno 19:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js'); // allows tweaking of rollback edit summary

I actually used Splarka's mass rollback script when I mass reverted yesterday. At any rate, thanks for the suggestion. Cheers, FASTILY 19:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they can be used in concert - one to change the edit summary to be more descriptive, and the other to do the mass revert. (I know that it works when using VOA's mass rollback script, not sure about Splarka's). –xeno 19:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think I prefer your combination of scripts better. I'll use those in the future. Thanks for the suggestions! -FASTILY 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox power station

Hi, Fastily. Something went wrong with the merging power stations infoboxes. All infoboxes are broken, e.g. Alpha Ventus Offshore Wind Farm. Beagel (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep! Look at Mohave Power Station. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I fixed this by restoring the old version that was deleted. You still need to do the merge I think. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was really bad, I can't believe I completely gummed up the history merge!! :/ I've also created a redirect at Template:Infobox UK power station. That should solve the problem. Thank you all for letting me know!! Best, FASTILY 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think you need to do the history merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right.  Done. Regards, FASTILY 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of old & public domain PD images

Hi, I see you make lots of useful contributions, and thanks for them. I just got this image undeleted, and I wanted to pass along the suggestion that if you see 2D images that were obviously published before 1923, or whose creators have clearly been dead for 70+ years, they are public domain, and it's good to be suspicious of any deletion requests. This applies to old paintings, for example, and in this case to a book published in 1692. Best regards, Wareh (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought there was something was funny about that image when I deleted it. Anyway, glad to see it's sorted out now. Regards, FASTILY 19:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize if I sounded too much like an admin on that RFPP request. v-_-v —Jeremy 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to apologize! As far as I'm concerned, you're still an administrator :P Best, FASTILY 19:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as you're concerned, maybe, but I seem to have pissed that IP off. —Jeremy 01:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And it seems I have, since he's taken his prot request to the article's talk page... —Jeremy 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fashion blog

This user Gabyth who was blocked 31hrs, has reverted you again (he now thinks it's me who was preventing him from removing content :) Check it out Is this a bad faith edit?? I'm only concerned 'bout what YOU think about this content not him.Jrod2 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Im still interested to know what your view is on that edit and if it wasnt your intention to revert his :) Jrod2 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Kitco Metals page

You deleted the page I started writing about Kitco Metals co. (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kitco_Metals,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1) I am in no way affiliated with Kitco Metals. I am interested in researching the company however because I want to know about its financial state. Why did you delete the article without engaging in any discussion? I posted a rationale on the talk page. You should seek consensus before deleting. My comment was that United Airlines China Airlines Cathay Pacific General Electric etc. have webpages. How do YOU get to decide which companies are notable without discussion? Mrdthree (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact an article is about a company or product is not sufficient basis to delete. Read the policy and please have the decency to restore your deletion and address your concerns about possible spam/advertising in the talk page, like every other wikipedia editor. Mrdthree (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Mrdthree#Re:Kitco Metals page -FASTILY 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you felt like the page read like an advertisement you should have posted the point on the discussion board. You should not have deleted the article. How can you explain the United Airlines website? or how can you justify not speedily deleting Motley Fool? Its not good form to bypass a discussion and speedily delete something, without answering a request for further consideration. Mrdthree (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you on ANI. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Images: File:CGIStudio lighting.jpg, File:CGIStudio materials.jpg, File:CGIStudio clouds.jpg

Hi there,

I'm the author of the Renderer_CGI_Studio Wiki page. I work for Blueskystudios, a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox, and I have authorization to use the 3 images, which are copywrighted images as part of a usual press-kit that is available for the public domain. Can you please help me with identifying what I need to do to display these images properly? I was under the assumption that I provided the necessary info to comply with Wiki guidelines for fair use.

Many thanks, Robert Cavaleri rob@blueskystudios.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavalber (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If the photos are part of a PR kit and copyrighted (but you would like to make the public domain), you will need to send an email to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org" detailing the copyright status of the files. In the email, be sure to attach the documents (from the copyright holder of the photos, or from a representative) that release the photos into the public domain and give permission for the files to be used on Misplaced Pages. Also, be sure to provide the names of the deleted files: "File:CGIStudio lighting.jpg, File:CGIStudio materials.jpg, File:CGIStudio clouds.jpg" so that they may be restored once the email is verified by the Wikimedia permissions department. For further reading, check out WP:PERMISSION and WP:DCP. -FASTILY 20:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Rust.png

Hi, I have requested this file for speedy deletion for:

• It was deleted yesterday "2010-08-13T02:15:53 Skier Dude (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rust.png" ‎ (F4: Lack of licensing information)"
• It's a fake, obvious manipulated. Compare the face of the man on the left with the rest of the picture (colour, light, angle). This one Feedizzle tries to ridicule this person: Greg Rust. That wasn't his first attempt, also as IP, look at the history of the mentioned article. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Y Deleted -FASTILY 20:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Hi Fastily. I have dropped a response on the talk page . Thought it might be better to drop a note to you..--Civilizededucation 05:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll have a look as soon as I have time. Cheers, FASTILY 20:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

DB F7 removal from File:Buffy6x22.jpg

Hi Fastily, I was wondering why you removed {{Di-replaceable fair use}} from the file? What is shown in the image "could be adequately covered with text alone" by saying in the article exactly what is in the FUR description: After Xander stops Willow from destroying the world, he comforts her as the dark magic drains from her. Surely it fails NFCC#1?

Additionally, does it not fail NFCC#8 because "its presence significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." All it says in the article is "Willow tearfully breaks down in Xander's arms as the dark magic drains from her and she returns to her usual red-haired appearance. while Xander continues to comfort Willow." A little further down the article it says, "In the DVD commentary for this episode, director James Contner says that while filming the scenes with Willow and Xander on the cliff, the wind churned up dust, which blew into Alyson Hannigan's eyes. Because of the dust, Hannigan removed her black contacts and her eyes were blackened digitally in post-production." But this image shows none of that. There is no dust blowing, and Hannigan has her eyes closed.

The image does not add anything to the article, so it should be deleted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking

What is clerking on the

Bot-reported

User-reported

• OmartheIdiot77 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as an offensive username. Sjö (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Wait until the user edits. Could be self deprecating. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• ExclusiveEditor (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a misleading username. Usernames that imply that the account has explicit ownership of certain articles, content, or topic areas, or that they have any kind of "power", "command", "control", or "authority" over other editors, or that a different level of accountability and application of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines should be enforced (such as implying that certain policies do not apply to them). QueerEcofeminist🌈 20:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not a violation of the username policy. That's a stretch. Jauerback/_dude. 20:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Quite a stretch if you factor in that they have nearly 7,000 edits and have been using this name without incident for almost exactly four years. Beeblebrox 21:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)? Is it something I can do as an editor?