User talk:Fastily/Archive 1

Question

Hi Fastily, my name is Louis de Gouyon Matignon, I am 23 years old and I am from France. I just wanted to tell you that I am the owner of the 2 images you deleted this morning on Wikimedia Commons (Parti européen - Logo) + (Parti européen - Affiche).

The first image you deleted was on : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Gouyon_Matignon The second on : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parti_europ%C3%A9en

I swear that I am the owner. I am also aware of the law, and I am responsible for the use of those images. Could you put them back on Wikimedia Commons ?

Thanks,

Louis

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ouch! (File:Kookabura sitting in the old gum tree.JPG)

Have a look at this AN reply of mine. I've reverted myself so as not to look like too much of a jackass... I still got a laugh out of it atleast... INeverCry 08:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

And see his edits like this, even though he reverted it later. IMHO, he is begging for another block. Jee 09:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nim's a bit out there, but his comment "I would like it deleted by tonight 11:59am Perth Time" had me laughing. I don't know if he meant it to be funny, but he scored on that one. INeverCry 09:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even know he cross-posted that to AN o_o I honestly don't quite know what to say -FASTILY 06:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all good - Nim's not an easy guy to follow. His comment still makes me smile even now though. Not just 11:59am, but 11:59am Perth Time - that's classic. INeverCry 06:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

See another edit. Jee 06:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And now. Jee 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ticket#2014082710018373

Hello Fastly, you have deleted image Spannwegbrücke Sophiental 1928. Yesterday I have send the following to Mikemoral: Hallo Mikemoral or with music: Mikemoral♪♫, hello OTRS Noticeboard, user Fastily löschte Seite File:Spannwegbrücke Sophiental 1928.jpg on 21:56, 4. Okt. 2014, reason: No permission since 26 September 2014. I posted the permission to OTRS on 28. Sept. 2014 (see above)and see delinker log: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=File:Spannwegbr%C3%BCcke_Sophiental_1928.jpg The file is deleated. What now? Is there a possibility to restore? Or is there another reason for deleation? Or have I something done wrong? Sorry, I am not very good in english. --Steppengras (Diskussion) 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Now I thing it is better, to send my questions to you. --Steppengras (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to make note that we've received an email in OTRS as ticket:2014082710018373. The permissions-de queue is rather backlogged and I don't want to answer a ticket in German because I don't think my German is good enough for that (though it seems like everything is clear). —Mikemoral♪♫ 18:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, an OTRS member has to approve the ticket before the file can be restored, so if you're not comfortable doing it, then we'll have to wait for somebody who is :/ -FASTILY 19:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete the image

Hey Mate,

Well done. Now I have a massive favour for you.

This File *File:Mercedes Benz ML300 CDI (2011).JPG has the same name as *File:Mercedes ML300 CDI.jpg If you have time find the one that is a better quality and keep that one but delete the one that is worser quality. You don't have to but I would highly recommend you do so. It is your choice so you do not have to do it but it is the same.

EurovisionNim 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Done for File:Mercedes ML300 CDI.jpg. Cheers, FASTILY 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

See this too. Jee 02:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not needed Jeevan

EurovisionNim 03:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fastily: I got a mail from EurovisionNim stating "please stop bullying me". I didn't see anywhere I bullied him; The only think I did so far is to bring the attentions of admins about the cross postings and requests which usually unseen by busy admins. Here he made a normal DR for the original image and a request here for the derivative work stating "duplicate". So at the end, both get deleted unless carefully handled by admins. I noticed his conflicts with a user in Project Automobiles at EN too. Jee 03:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoration

Please, check this undeletion request.--Coentor (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see also File:RandiLogo2.JPG. In my speedy deletion rationale I had explicitely asked to only remove the first revision of the file. I had uploaded a cropped version that was PD-textlogo and could've have stayed without a problem. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, hope that helps -FASTILY 19:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick service. :) De728631 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please verify which is a better image

Hey buddy

I need to ask you a favour. Which image is better quality. *File:IMG 0606 副本.jpg or *File:2013 Mercedes ML350.JPG because with this image *File:IMG 0606 副本.jpg I actually replaced it thinking that my image is better quality but I want you to be the judge. Please reply as soon as you can as then I can revert my edit off.

EurovisionNim 06:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO both are perfectly fine. If you'd like the community to critique your photography, please check out Commons:Photography critiques -FASTILY 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted File:Jeffrey Jones.jpg

Not being the owner of the image, I was unaware of any action that would lead to the deleting of File:Jeffrey Jones.jpg. It was a file uploaded by the creator of the work, so I was surprised find that it was deleted. Can you point me to the log that would identify the issues with the file? Now that it has been deleted, is there any other way to recreate the file, other than for the author to upload it, again? The creator of the file does not regularly visit Wikimedia. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please have the owner email COM:OTRS. If everything is found to be in order, they will restore the file -FASTILY 19:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I can do that, but since the owner had an account in Wikimedia Commons and used the guided process for uploading, I'm pretty sure that there was a CC 4.0 license when the image was first uploaded. It's possible that, since Jones is a controversial figure, someone could have removed the license from the file. Perhaps you could check on what the original state of the file was after the upload and determine whether it had been tampered with. Since the image was uploaded by a noted photographer, Greg Gorman, in January, it would surprise me that only recently would the issue of a license would arise. Thank you for looking into this matter. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no instance in the deleted revs where a license tag was removed. I do see a concern raised about the authorship details of the image (it appears elsewhere on the internet), meaning this will have to be resolved via COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Fastily. The sole example of that image that I find by Google search is the now-deleted file. This would lead me to conclude that the assertion that it is found elsewhere is incorrect. If it were on another website, due diligence would require confirmation that the image antedated its appearance in Wikimedia, since it would be legitimate for the image to coexist under the CC license. I would ask that someone to verify that assertion to confirm that it was a legitimate basis for deleting the file.

Even if that problem existed, since the image is now deleted, how would the author make reference in an OTRS request to an image that doesn't now exist, but which he properly uploaded in the first place? While I would ask that someone inspect the initial state of the file after upload and review whether there was a defect at that time, would it not be more expedient for the uploader to simply repeat the process with the same file name? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk)

Sorry for not being clear; allow me to clarify. The file was flagged as missing clear evidence of permission (e.g. it appears elsewhere on the internet, was uploaded by somebody claiming to have publication permission/authorization from the copyright holder, OR was professional quality photo uploaded by a new account with minimal contributions) for over seven days (upon which it is eligible for on-sight speedy deletion). The uploader, User:Greg Gorman is a newly created account with a single contribution: File:Jeffrey Jones.jpg, which is a professional quality photo of a notable individual. While I'm not making any assumptions as to whether Mr. Gorman is engaging in any sort of license laundering or creating copyright violations, we do require professional photo submissions from new accounts to have COM:OTRS permission so as to distinguish legitimate contributions from vandals impersonating users and creating copyright violations (fun stat: Commons gets over 10,000 new photos a day, about 1,000 of these are deleted as copyright violations/non-educational content). Yes, the system is far from perfect (I'm no fan of it myself), but given our limited man power (about 10 admins do 80% of the work, right @Jim? :) ), it's the only thing that's worked for us thus far. So yes, please have Mr. Gorman send an email to COM:OTRS, indicating that the file is his, and that he's willing to irrevocably release the image under a free license and we'll be happy to restore it for you -FASTILY 22:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Your numbers are mostly correct, Fastily, although it's closer to 2,000 deletions a day than 1,000.

And, yes, if I saw a small (720x1080px) professional quality studio portrait uploaded by a user with only the one image in his contributions, I would have deleted it myself. While we generally assume good faith, unusual images -- old, B&W, small, or very high quality -- from single upload users are automatically suspect. This fits two of those groups.

If, as HopsonRoad suggests, Gorman simply uploads the same image again, it will be rapidly deleted and Gorman may well be blocked. If he were to upload a full resolution version -- say 2800x4000px -- it would likely be kept, since that would show that he had not simply grabbed it off the web. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for your clarifications. I was unaware of these constraints, when I invited Mr. Gorman to upload the image in question. I will contact him with an OTRS request for him to forward. If that occurs, is there a way to revert all the deletions of the images from Wikipedia files in other languages, or must I do that manually? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No need, OTRS will take care of all that once they process the permissions email -FASTILY 23:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by OnkelDagobert

The files listed on the site mentioned above are used in the German wikibook "Die medizinische Dissertation" and important for reading and understanding the concepts described in this book. They are NOT available via the printable version Therefore, would you kindly restore these files? Thank you. --OnkelDagobert (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

These were deleted because they should be coded as wikitables. Please see mw:Help:Tables -FASTILY 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

At least two of them can not be coded as wikitables because they are no tables. E. g. how should "File:Dissertation uebersicht.JPG" or "File:Diskussion mindmapschema.jpg" be coded as wikitable? --OnkelDagobert (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Opo0210b.tif

Dear Fastly,

after checking this, I do not see the reason for a speedy deletion:

The file has a source information: http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo0210b/ (Html-page) http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/original/opo0210b.tif (file itself)

On the bootom left of the page is an link to the copyright information: http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/ (this link has been copied in commons, too)

And there is a usage Q&A:

Q: Do I need to contact all the people named in the credit line for permission to use an image or video?
A: No. Images and videos published on spacetelescope.org are, unless explicitly stated otherwise, 
   cleared for reuse without needing to contact the individuals or organisations listed. 
   Their names must not be removed from the credit, however.

So at least this Image is not qualified for speedy deletion.

My opionion is, that the copyright is resolved by spacetelescope.org which is operated by ESO.

Please restore.

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The concern cited in the speedy tag was: "Per [1], NOAO images are copyrighted. Source specifically credits NOAO (and not Hubble) for this image." Seems pretty accurate as far as I can see. -FASTILY 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but it´s not the whole picture. Checking the NOAO license, they have in chapter II. B. three usage categories, where only Commercial Use is requiring a permission.

ESO (spacetelescope.org) states they have for this image their permission for use under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

To put it in other words: most images on commons are copyrighted, many of them under cc-3.0. This is not a reason to speedily delete them ;-)

Best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cat and Mouse Act Poster - 1914.jpg

Hey, Fastily! Do you think this can just be licensed as {{PD-UK-anon}}, or do we need to move this to en-wiki? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't know just by looking at it. Do you have a third party source with authorship/attribution/publication details? -FASTILY 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There's some details on it - it's a little hard to read, but lower left-hand corner. No artist signature, but it's attributed to a suffragette organization, and the en:Cat and Mouse Act pretty strongly dates it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then my next question would be: does that make the suffragette organization the copyright holder? If so, PD-UK-anon may not be applicable. I'll ask for a few other opinions at COM:VPC -FASTILY 22:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! My understanding is that, when the owner is a corporation, it's functionally identical to PD-UK-anon, as only an actual person gets the "life+" part of "life+70", but I could be wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Adler Arena

Please undelete my 3 photos per Russian law update 1 oct 2014. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia --Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ann_Daniels_voice.flac

I see that you recent deleted . I have an email from Ms Daniels, to me and CCd to "[email protected]", dated 5 Sept this year, granting a licence for its use. Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please double check your inbox and/or spam folder to make sure OTRS hasn't replied to you in the meantime. If you don't see any replies from them, resend the email to '[email protected]' and I can ask somebody from OTRS about it -FASTILY 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Does this look like a copyright violation to you?

File:Maria Sergejeva.jpg has all the hallmarks of a copyvio to me. No EXIF (even though it's obviously a high-res, pro portrait) and doesn't seem like the average Commons image. Especially when one sees the image it replaced (both uploaded by the same uploader).

I haven't reported it as an obvious copyvio as it doesn't show up on TinEye or Google images, but my spidey sense is tingling all over this one, and in the words of the great philosopher, "the further you pass the buck, the longer it takes to get back to you". Consider the buck passed! :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In such cases, you can use add {{subst:nsd}} on the picture. --Dereckson (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say your assumption here is quite accurate! Applying either {{subst:npd}} or {{subst:nsd}} would be great, but it looks like Dereckson already took care of it. Best, FASTILY 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete my picture please

Hi Fastily,

Please delete the following picture. I really think this is low quality image.

• File:BMW5SERIES2012.jpg

You can take all the time you want but I would like it deleted as soon as possible

EurovisionNim 07:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Resaca a València fileset

Are You and Admin? Please, recover the whole set, which has been voted for keep in two different votations.--Coentor (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Er...what? -FASTILY 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to recover the whole fileset from File:Resaca a València - 1.jpeg to File:Resaca a València - 21.jpeg in two different requests which have been accepted, but only one file has been recovered. [2].--Coentor (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of peerages of the United Kingdom

Please delete this category I created, it's a duplicate of another that I couldn't find until after I had created it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 01:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete my pics please

• File:Qantas 737-838.JPG

Please delete this image as it is not being used and it is not at good quality

EurovisionNim 07:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Resaca a València fileset

Are You and Admin? Please, recover the whole set, which has been voted for keep in two different votations.--Coentor (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Er...what? -FASTILY 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to recover the whole fileset from File:Resaca a València - 1.jpeg to File:Resaca a València - 21.jpeg in two different requests which have been accepted, but only one file has been recovered. [3].--Coentor (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, that doesn't make any sense. Could you please provide URLs to the [deleted] files in question? -FASTILY 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete the following images

Hi Mate,

Please can you delete the images as they are not in used and requested by uploader. Please take all the time you want because I am not in a hurry.

• File:2013 Mercedes ML350.JPG
• File:City,Honda11.JPG
• File:Subaru WRX.JPG
• File:Subaru XV in Canberra 2014.jpg

Could you please delete these images soon. Take all the time you want.

EurovisionNim 10:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have keep closed the DR's on these files. EurovisionNim, contributions to Wikimedia Commons are not revocable. Please stop consuming administrator capacity. Jcb (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, as a courtesy deletion of unused, unlinked files -FASTILY 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And restored. This is an unacceptable abuse of tools. No reason for courtesy deletion here. Two of the files where at Commons of over three months! What if some third party already reused a file? Then the source cannot be found because an administrator at Wikimedia Commons decided to ignore all rules. I keep closed the DR's. If you want to have them deleted, you can start a new DR. Jcb (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Want_to_revoke_your_contribution.3F_Now_possible.2C_ask_Fastily - Jcb (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Excuse me butting in, but I have to agree with JCB. I've been watching EurovisionNim's antics for a couple of weeks now and to say that he's taking the piss, is an understatement. He seems to think Commons is a Dropbox/cloud-type entity wherein he can upload his pics whilst they interest him, then when he doesn't want them in his "camera" anymore he puts in some ridiculous deletion request, or overwrites them, or just demands on one of the noticeboards that they be deleted straight away. His courtesy credits expired a while ago. It seems to be that pandering to him constantly like this is either enabling him or being trolled by him. Meanwhile he's not learning how this whole thing works here, and he certainly doesn't seem to understand what "irrevocable" means.. Just my 2c. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

With no comment on Johan's post (I have nothing nice to say), I'll drop the stick per Fred, whose opinion I actually respect. Although FWIW, Johan could have handled himself better, instead of challenging me to wheelwar (e.g. [4], [5]) and making a sarcastic jab in an ANU header; now that's just childish. -FASTILY 23:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with JCB's general sentiment about not doing as EN requests, I should state that I don't agree with his delivery method, reversion without discussion, AN post or generally sarcastic tone. That's normally my MO, and I don't like competition! ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like someone is on a shopping trip. Not to mention the classic that is dwelling in the recent history of this page! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with Fastily's decision to act like a mentor to an youngster like EurovisionNim. But it seems he is not making any efforts to learn the license terms. His requests like "I don't want it in my camera", "I want delete it from Commons at 11:59:59 Perth time" are rather childish. It may end up as another AK issue unless properly handled; I afraid. Jee 02:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jee. I tried to help him out, but meh, maybe Nim doesn't have the maturity to edit productively on Commons just yet. In a couple years perhaps... -FASTILY 23:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

You deleted File:Ford Transit Bus, Ontario Canada, 1940s.jpg. Your deletion log explanation claimed it was a copyright violation. Could you please tell me where the deletion of this image was discussed, and where the copyvio claim in your deletion log entry was articulated? Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the reason cited was "Picture is copyrighted by either the photographer (Ted Wickson) or the publisher (JBC Visuals: P.O. Box 5736 Station A, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5W 1P2)". Seems accurate as far as I can see. -FASTILY 23:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Geo Swan, if you wish to know how he determines the postal card author and company, you can ask Useddenim, he's the requester. --Dereckson (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy of the card in my collection; the information is on its back. If you wish to contact Mr. Wickson to ask for permission, he's on facebook. Useddenim (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fastily: I took a look at Geo Swan's uploads, and with all the images he's transferred from Flickr and elsewhere, it makes me wonder just how many others are also copyvios? Useddenim (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fastily, aren't copyright claims on Canadian images, published prior to 1949-1-1 irrelevant?

So there is an equal playing field I request you reproduce the {{Information}} template from the image. Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you go -FASTILY 23:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Del 2 cat

Hi, I asked [6] in reasons of deleted files for deletion two empty categories:

• Category:May-Britt Moser
• Category:Edvard Moser

Thank you.--Kacir (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 16:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted File:Jeffrey Jones.jpg

Hi Fastily, Could you please check on progress with restoring the subject file? The author/copyright holder sent his OTRS approval to [email protected] on Sunday, October 11. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. What is the OTRS ticket/reference number? -FASTILY 16:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fastily. Since I'm not the sender of the OTRS permission, only the recipient of a cc to the e-mail, I don't know the number, sad to say. I can send a copy of the e-mail that was cc'd to me. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS [auto] replies to emails with a ticket number. I'm going to need that to proceed. -FASTILY 23:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Jeffrey Jones.jpg

Hi Fastily, You mentioned in an earlier correspondence that once reinstated, the subject file could be robotically restored to the articles where it was found across Wikipedia. It has been received under Ticket#2014101110011351. So, please let me know when that process can now unfold, or whether I must proceed manually. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk)

I see the email was sent a little over a week ago. OTRS is typically on a two week backlog, so it could take several more days for them to process the request. Your continued patience is appreciated... -FASTILY 01:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Fastily. I very much appreciate your update and your service to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Abrupt closures on AN/U

Hi, I believe this is the second time in the last 12 months you have intervened to abruptly close a discussion on AN/U that I created for Fry1989's disruptive behaviour. I am in the middle of a detailed analysis which I intend to put together tomorrow. Your closure within 24 hours of opening the thread was far too short to handle the somewhat complex evidence of overwrites. If you insist on keeping the AN/U thread closed, then I will have to keep a pre-prepared report to hand to slap into the next big debate with Fry1989, which considering how many of these we see in a year, should not take long anyway. Unfortunately that starts to look like the "out to get me" actions that Fry has been alleging.

In the meantime you may wish to take a moment to actually look at the report I included in that section that although it needs to be trimmed down, clearly demonstrates a pattern of problematic hostile revert warring this year. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If Fae wishes to draw out their obvious attempted witch hunt, let them. I simply won't be part of it any longer. I've succeeded in pointing out Fae's bullshit and that this is not the first time they have collected a history of my past edits to try and get me put in a cage, let every see Fae play the role of Captain Ahab! Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fae: And I'll continue to close them as long as they have no actionable basis. Your ridiculous grudge match with Fry turned personal vendetta has no place on ANU where it achieves little besides wasting the community's editing time. Given your long history with WMF projects, I expect better conduct from you. Crying wolf and then going out of your way to bully a productive user who has literally done nothing wrong is pathetic. -FASTILY 19:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

File deletion (missing license)

Hi Fastily, you deleted a file I uploaded a month ago https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tiburones_FAA.png&action=edit&redlink=1 I cannot remember what details I provided when uploading, but certainly is own work for a sports league I play in. Tried to reupload tagging it {{PD-user|candyman}} + selecting copyleft license, but then I get a warning that the file had been deleted " If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored". Shouldn't it be easier to reupload with the tag and details? What do you suggest? It's own work, I wouldn't know what to email. Also, your FAQ link is broken, sorry if I asked something that you already answered. Thanks! --Candyman (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! To be perfectly honest, I'm (pleasantly) surprised you tried to access my FAQ; I removed it awhile back because I thought a) nobody used it and b) it was of sub-par quality. I'll work on putting together a new one soon :) As for File:Tiburones_FAA.png, was this logo conceived and drawn entirely by you? If not, can you tell me how you obtained the logo, and/or whether you have explicit authorization from the owner of the Tiburones to distribute/publish this image? -FASTILY 18:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As an interested party.

As an interested party I thought you should know that Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fæ/Fry1989 revert analysis exists. And so I can't be accused of canvassing I'm only informing yourself and Fry. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Who stops first

I know that it is difficult when someone is escalating, but who stops first? Please would you moderate some of your language and your approach. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I'll drop the stick and recuse myself from further discussion. Thanks for working to diffuse that hot mess. -FASTILY 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

a request

I urge you, in the interests of collegiality, to stop your practice of speedy deleting categories for deletion when they are under discussion. It is, in my opinion, highly disruptive, and gives the appearance you don't respect the opinions or efforts of other contributors.

The most recent instance was Category:Number 0923 on vehicles.

Please do not compound your error by closing this discussion yourself. You would no longer be an uninvolved administrator. You made the mistake of improperly closing the discussion the last time I questioned your deletion of a category that was empty, even thought the nominator had manually emptied it. I could have engaged in an edit war, and manually restored the empty categories content. Instead I called for a discussion of the issue, looking for input from others. This is what I was supposed to do. And administrators, like you, should let those discussion run to their proper completion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

kittens in case pic

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kitten_and_Computer_Case_5_2014-08-23.JPG can you tell me the brand of the cas ein this pic it was uploaded by you and i believe i own one that might be by the same manufacturer ( http://imgur.com/a/BkJgN ) im trying to find documentation for said case and it would be a big help i noticed it might be the same manufacture because of the same toolless design and the same fan is used thanks in advance if you know anything about the case if not thanks anyways :) edit* created a user account so you can respond hopefully i get an email response

-neontsunade

p.s i hope i used this right sorry if ive mistakenly done something wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by neontsunade (talk • contribs) 2014-10-30 03:24 AM (UTC)

It was a friend's computer case, and unfortunately I do not know either the manufacturer or model. Wish I could be more help, sorry -FASTILY 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

all good mate ill measure and see what i can get in there and next time know not to cheap out on my oc case

ArchiveBot

Just curiosity, is it on labs nowadays? (You said you'll move bot to labs in the BRFA :p) — revi_msg 08:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh. It's been on labs -FASTILY 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

{{WMFLabsBot}} wants you :) — revi_msg 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, FASTILY 17:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Palais du Louvre 53 2012-06-29.jpg

Yours sincerely, El Grafo (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Palais du Louvre 53 2012-06-29.jpg

Yours sincerely, Thesupermat (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Rajpoots 2-scaled.tif

Hey, Fastily, I was going through my old restorations and found a link to this. Could you tell me what it was? Doesn't look like anything of mine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a test case for MediaWiki's ImageMagick scaler. See bugzilla:24889. As far as I can see, nobody's using it anymore, and FWIW we're going to transition over to VIPS soon. -FASTILY 22:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks! Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krigsminnesmerket på Stavsøra (1).JPG

Hello, you deleted a picture while i converted the speedy tag to regular deletion request. can you have a second look please? Holger1959 (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Restored for discussion, hope that helps -FASTILY 22:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you! i wanted to do the same with the other "speedies" of this user, but there are already gone. Holger1959 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(offtopic) i have seen that your FAQ link in User_talk:Fastily/Editnotice is red, maybe you want to adapt this little piece? Holger1959 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe I deleted it awhile ago because it was poorly/lazily written, and because I thought nobody actually used it. A couple other users besides yourself actually told me it was helpful, so writing a new and improved version is on my to-do list -FASTILY 22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Leŭ Sapieha stamp.jpg

Hello. It seems a mistake has occurred. Or maybe I don't understand something, but why you delete the file, which had more descriptive name than File:1995. Stamp of Belarus 0116.jpg, and was uploaded much more earlier? In my opinion it is unfair and look like abusing. I think the proper way is to restore File:Leŭ Sapieha stamp.jpg and to delete File:1995. Stamp of Belarus 0116.jpg as exact duplicate, which was uploaded later than original file. Thanks for your contribution to project. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

File:1995. Stamp of Belarus 0116.jpg is of higher resolution than File:Leŭ Sapieha stamp.jpg. We keep high res files and delete low res duplicates... -FASTILY 20:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

speedy deletion of "old" uploads

Hello! a few days ago I asked you to restore a speedy deleted image (Krigsminnesmerket på Stavsøra (1).JPG). Now i found 6 similar cases:

• File:Melhus sentrum, hovedgata ved juletider (01).JPG
• File:Jarlshola (2).JPG
• File:Jarlshola (4).JPG
• File:Steinen på Rimol (2).JPG
• File:Bauta over Einar Tambarskjelve (1).JPG
• File:Bauta over Einar Tambarskjelve (4).JPG

From the upload log these images were also uploaded more than a year (about 2 years) ago and i think this comment which I left at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jarlshola (6).JPG would be valid here too. I can not tell if these images are really used elsewhere, or if all of them are different to the not-deleted/similar ones (i only remember 3 of the motivs), but maybe you could have a second look and restore/change to regular deletion requests? Holger1959 (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

022.jpg

hi my english language is not very good.one month ago you delete my image upload but i didn't know which one licences is right for this image. becuse i don't a lot of about wikipedia work.do you help me about this?i uploaded a image and this link address is for this image from a official site. http://farhadmehrad.org/Limages/022.jpg --Saman hakimi (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This image is not suitable for Commons. Please see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

for being the one to reduce the block. By this I won a bet! (The bet is not a joke.)
To be serious, I don't think that reducing the length that much is justified. Anyway, I would like to ask you to offer your support in finding a long-term solution. This means that if after the end of the block Fred refrained from us personal attacks and using a foul-mouthed language, it would be fine and we are happy to have a good contributor back on Commons. However, if he re-restarted the same behavior as before, this needs to be sanctioned (and I would be happy to see you being the admin who does this). Deal? --Leyo 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I find this solution agreeable, and will be happy to re-block him myself if he resumes the incivility. However, it's probably moot for now given how Fred's block has just been renewed for another 3 months. -FASTILY 21:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at AN/U involving yourself, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Fastily's block reduction of Fred the Oyster to 1 day. I am sure you are aware of it, however better to have belt and braces for these processes now that a desysop request has been mentioned. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If defending Fred, a contributing member of this community, from the lynch mob results in the loss of my tools, I'll be damned happy to give them up. -FASTILY 21:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

pictures "odranci slowenia"

hi Fastily, on June 26 2014 I put two own-made pictures from the church of odranci on wikimedia. On July 27 you deleted them by "Derivative of non-free content". a few days later i wrote you for asking why. I received no answer till now. The pictures are taken by myself and there is no need to delete them. Please answer.--Christian1311 (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

pictures "odranci slowenia"

hi Fastily, on June 26 2014 I put two own-made pictures from the church of odranci on wikimedia. On July 27 you deleted them by "Derivative of non-free content". a few days later i wrote you for asking why. I received no answer till now. The pictures are taken by myself and there is no need to delete them. Please answer.--Christian1311 (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read COM:FOP#Slovenia. These images depict copyrighted architecture, making them derivatives of non-free content, which is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 09:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Suitsupply logo

Hi fastily! I noticed that you deleted Suitsupply Logo file (Suitsupply_Logo.png) due to missing copyright information. I am more than happy to update the copyright information, but until you bring it back online i cannot do so. Would it be possible to un-delete this file? Thank you very much!

As I stated in the deletion reason, you may re-upload the file, but please include a copyright tag. -FASTILY 09:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The images of Pennal you deleted

Same as above; please reinstated the deleted images, applying an FAL which is used on +100k files in Category:FAL. Latest info on CC is found here. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom. These images depict copyrighted 2D works of art, making them derivatives of non-free content, which is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 09:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal Images Deleted By You

Can you explain why the following deleted images can't be qualified under personal images. Kindly explain the grey area of the policy which has prompted you to delete?Pathmaraman (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Read COM:SCOPE. Commons is not a personal webhost or photo album. -FASTILY 07:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fastily, I understand. I had a discussion with the nominator here; since the nominator suggests to request for Undeletion if I feel so; I request to undelete Two Images which might be applicable with COM:EDUSE; one is Late Markam Maniam is in a drama performance of the Old Boys Association in Canada in 2001, the other one is, the image of the Late Husband and Wife under whose name there is a scholarship available at Kokuvil Hindu College.Pathmaraman (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in that case please start an undeletion request for the above-mentioned files. I cannot unilaterally overturn a DR without community discussion first. Regards, FASTILY 05:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Regards.Pathmaraman (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Aškabat_zabavišče_(3).JPG

Does File:Aškabat_zabavišče_(3).JPG need to be deleted? 86.166.185.74 00:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Regards, FASTILY 05:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Archivebot

Hi, User:ArchiveBot tried to close an RfC on COM:VPP, and its talk page is a redirect ending up here. Symptom fixed by Steinsplitter, no urgent problem. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It just archives old threads, no matter RfC is closed or not. Subst {{DNAU}} if you don't want RfC archived. — revi_msg 13:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This was supposed to be humurous, sorry if that attempt failed. Something did not work as expected and caused three minor confusions on COM:VPP, see the edit history. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, maybe my English is too bad to understand your humour or I am full of stress (elsewhere :P) — revi_msg 13:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

More likely my DEnglish, it took me decades to figure out "A resp. B" vs. "A or B, resp.", or what's wrong with "infos" (until somebody simply told me ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Bierton_front_11.jpeg

The photo File:Bierton_front_11.jpeg was uploaded by the same editor who uploaded File:Biertonfront fmt.jpeg, which you deleted for being a copyvio. I cannot see the original photo anymore, but this new one just looks like a cropped and zoomed version of the deleted image. Almost all of the photos uploaded by this editor have either been deleted or marked as questionable by different commons editors, including myself. I don't think they are intentionally doing it to be disruptive or cause problems; They seem to be acting in good faith. They have, however, been informed of what the problem is quite a few times, including by myself, but still for some reason seem unable to understand why what they are doing is probably incorrect. Not sure what else to do here because every photo they upload seems to be problematic. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted image and blocked the uploader as a serial copyright violater. Hope that helps. Regards, FASTILY 01:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Too bad it had to come to that. Although I do believe that editor really meant no harm, for some reason they just keep uploading images as their "own work" without providing any proof that they had permission to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms of Switzerland

Why this file (File:Elm-coat of arms.png) has been deleted and why not this File:Wappen Elm.png and this File:Picswiss GL-12-19.jpg? What is the difference? They are all of Arms (emblem) of a former political community. Greeting --Schofför (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary crops

Can you delete these: File:Prince Lot of Hawaii.jpg, File:Prince Lot Kapuaiwa abroad.jpg, File:Prince Alexander of Hawaii.jpg, File:Prince Alexander Liholiho on tour.jpg, File:Prince Alexander Liholiho abroad.jpg? They are unnecessary crops I made of larger images.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms of Switzerland

Why this file (File:Elm-coat of arms.png) has been deleted and why not this File:Wappen Elm.png and this File:Picswiss GL-12-19.jpg? What is the difference? They are all of Arms (emblem) of a former political community. Greeting --Schofför (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary crops

Can you delete these: File:Prince Lot of Hawaii.jpg, File:Prince Lot Kapuaiwa abroad.jpg, File:Prince Alexander of Hawaii.jpg, File:Prince Alexander Liholiho on tour.jpg, File:Prince Alexander Liholiho abroad.jpg? They are unnecessary crops I made of larger images.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms of Switzerland

Why this file (File:Elm-coat of arms.png) has been deleted and why not this File:Wappen Elm.png and this File:Picswiss GL-12-19.jpg? What is the difference? They are all of Arms (emblem) of a former political community. Greeting --Schofför (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The file was flagged as missing verifiable source information for more than 7 days. -FASTILY 06:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to undelete and provided with the necessary license? This is correct; Template:PD-Coa-Switzerland. Thank you. --Schofför (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a license issue. The file is missing a source link and/or citation verifying it's copyright status -FASTILY 19:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think, in Switzerland, a coat of arms does not need a copyright, the Template: PD-Coa-Switzerland is enough (see the English text in the template). --Schofför (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me; it's not a copyright problem, it's a source problem. The source is necessary to confirm the copyright status. Do you have a source URL for the file? If so, please provide it to me so I can restore the file. If not, then this is going to stay deleted. -FASTILY 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. I have not uploaded the file at Commons. But it could be that it originates from this site: Stiftung Schweizer Wappen und Fahnen. From here, many of Arms of Switzerland are descended.

With best regards --Schofför (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the image in question at the URL you provided. For your reference, the deleted image: [7] -FASTILY 21:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

True, the deleted image has a lower quality than the image of the coat of arms of Elm on the above URL. One would have to upload it again. For this discussion is done. Thank you anyway. --Schofför (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

COM:AN

In case you haven't noticed, an IP started a discussion about an action made by you and a different user at COM:AN#Fastily and Russavia starting again without notifying you. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Uncluttered Teahouse bug screenshot.jpg

File:Uncluttered Teahouse bug screenshot.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Teahouse Guest page overlap issue as seen by Technical 13.png

File:Teahouse Guest page overlap issue as seen by Technical 13.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

File:GEN Volney F Warner Commander in Chief U.S. Readiness Command 1981 Official Picture.jpg

Any chance you can restore this image? I'm fairly sure it is an official US Army photo and thus in the public domain, as per Template:PD-USGov-Army. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the deleted image for reference: [8], [9]. If it's okay for Commons, then I can restore it, but you may have to update the file description page accordingly. Just let me know. Regards, FASTILY 04:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll update it. If you could ping me when it's done, that'd be great. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Connormah - Done! -FASTILY 20:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

On Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests I wrote that I thought you had made several instances of bad judgment -- without however naming you by name.

I think the worst mistake you made was overlooking how your bad decisions could be seen as setting up Allo002 for a possible block, or sanctions, from other administrators. I do not believe Allo002 is a vandal. But, by not helping them understand how their actions were counter-policy, you have encouraged them to continue to take counter-policy actions. So it may very well come to the point where they do get blocked. Geo Swan (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware, as we both know, that you've got some grudge against me (and likely for some imagined slight), but this poor attempt to spin a routine maintenance job into something negative in order to slander me is pretty pathetic. If this is the route you're going for, at least make it fun for the both of us... -FASTILY 20:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mile Railway Station 1897 - Bonzle Collections.jpg

Fastily: I'd like to restore this -- it's PD because all Australian images taken before 1/1/1955 are PD (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Australia) and this obviously predates the 50s. I can do an UnDR, but I thought I'd just ask you first because you deleted it. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for the note! I've restored the file, but the description page may need some updating. All the best, FASTILY 05:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

Hello, You have deleted many picture that I updated (and were used and important on many articles), without any warning which is contrary to Commons policy - and extremely rude. Please restore them so I can see what was wrong. And please note that talking is always more useful than wild deleting. Regards, FredD (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your generous assumption of good faith. I'm going to need the list of images in question, so that we both know what you're referring to. I'm very happy to help you, but I must insist that you remain polite and cordial so we can resolve your concerns accordingly. Kind regards, FASTILY 20:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for not totally assuming your good faith, but deleting professional pictures without even a message is actually rude, contrary to the rules and not assuming good faith from the authors and uploader ; it also damages the content of articles using the files and demands a lot of useless work for me (especially if you can't even find back the files in question by yourself). Anyway, I'll remain polite and assume your good faith, but please understand that I can feel annoyed to see my work destroyed like that. The files are File:Trapezia cymodoce Landaagiraavaru.JPG, File:Un crabe-éponge Dromia sp..jpg, and File:Majoidea à déterminer.jpg, at least. Hence, three tropical crabs, which had perfect OTRS authorization but maybe the bots which had to flag it did not do their work well. Kind regards, FredD (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, I have seen the deletion was not your bad as an old "OTRS pending" was apparently still on them, so I apologize for having being nervous. So could you please put back the three pictures in question ? They are needed on their articles. Thank you, FredD (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's been clarified here, so all restored. Regards, FASTILY 07:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and sorry for the misunderstanding. All the best, FredD (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Picture - Петър Аврамов

Dear Fastily,

Can you please explain why you deleted a picture (which is made by me) for copyright violation? The picture name is PAnew1.jpg. Can you please restore the picture?

Thank you!

You need to include source information and licensing information to the file's description page, see COM:EI. If you're having trouble doing this, please use the Special:UploadWizard. -FASTILY 20:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:620540main MCC PLAQUE full.jpg

File:620540main MCC PLAQUE full.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Revent (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Picture Jireh Gospel Choir 2013.jpg deleted

The picture Jireh Gospel Choir 2013.jpg has been deleted for copyright violation but I provided the credits of the people who work together to get this photo of the choir. Photography: Touché Studio Graphics: Rex Verzosa

Can I get your help to restore the picture? What should be done? Thank you.

You can only publish photos of which you are the copyright holder. I'm afraid this image is not suitable for Commons -FASTILY 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What should I do to prove that I have the copyrights for Commons?

Send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictures deleted: File:The Dufresne House 04.jpg and File:The Dufresne House 11.jpg

Hi,

These two pictures were deleted; The Dufresne House 04.jpg and File:The Dufresne House 11.jpg. I asked the OTRS team on november 6, 2014 to add the permission number on all pictures made by Micheal M. Fieldman (Category:Photographs by Michael M. Fieldman) after receiving the authorization that I sent them. It seems they maybe forgot to put the permission on all of them. Thus, can you restore those pictures and add the permission number? Thank you! --Thomas1313 (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

{{PermissionOTRS|Jcb}}

I'll ask OTRS about it. Will keep you posted. -FASTILY 08:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I realize now I should have contacted the originator of the file. WV-Mike

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_Mountains (Beehive Peak photo)

Greetings, I live in Tucson Estates. Can you tell me where he photo of Beehive Peak was taken from? I am interested in hiking up there. I am also newish to the area. I lead hikes and when I do I like to be able to point out land features such at Peaks, Mt Ranges, etc.

Thanks, WV-Mike

I don't know why you're asking me about that, but you may find Wikivoyage helpful -FASTILY 07:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For running User:ArchiveBot. Rillke(q?) 23:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rillke! :) -FASTILY 07:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Some problematic images

From this user. I've left some image helps on their talk page and reverted one image that was incorrectly linked/formatted but if you wouldn't mind taking a look at all the images they've uploaded that would be great. I'm not sure quite what to do. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All deleted! Hope that helps, FASTILY 08:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Paline de Syam, Syam, la Côte Poire

I send to permission-commons the mail of the autor of the image by this mail

---

E-mail d'origine-----

De : ArchéoJuraSites-POP <[email protected]> A: permissions-commons-fr <[email protected]> Envoyé le : Ve, 12 Déc 2014 10:55 Sujet : Accord pour diffusion de photo

Je soussigné Jean MICHEL, Secrétaire général de l’association ArchéoJuraSites, donne l’accord formel de l’association pour la diffusion sur Wikipédia (page Syam) de la photo  :

[File:Plaine de Syam, Syam et la Côte Poire au nord..pdf|thumb|plaine de Syam, Syam et la Côte Poire au nord.]

Jean MICHEL 12 décembre 2015

ArchéoJuraSites 24, Grande Rue - 39150 CHAUX-DES-CROTENAY • ([email protected]) • http(://www.archeojurasites.org) • Galerie-photo des vestiges : http(://bit.ly/1t8YaNe) • Portail des Archives: http(://berthier.archeojurasites.org)

This permission is in english, but the association is french. Does the association send a mail in English ?

Thank you for responsing.--Ciborum (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Independence Day of South Sudan.svg

Would you mind deleting this redirect? Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

File: ITC GolgiTheories Copy.jpg was deleted

Hi Fastily,

I hope this is the correct forum to contact you. I had uploaded File:ITC GolgiTheories Copy.jpg from The National Institute of General Medical Sciences image and video gallery (http://images.nigms.nih.gov/) in which they state "Permission is granted to use these products for educational, news media or research purposes, provided the source for each is credited." The page I directly found the image from is here: http://images.nigms.nih.gov/index.cfm?event=viewDetail&imageID=1278.

Can you please clarify in what way this could be a possible copyright infringement? I had indicated who the creator was on the upload form. Maybe I have a misunderstanding, since I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to hear your justification so that I can avoid a future mistake, if you are not in error.

Thank you! Eknichols

I've fixed the page for you. In the future, be sure to specify a license tag any file you upload. That'll make things a lot easier on us -FASTILY 23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

File: Ten_letters_to_obama_by_dennis_adonis_cover.jpg was deleted

Hello. I think I did not properly attribute any evidence that permission was granted for the use of the file.

However, I had contacted the creator several weeks ago, who have since released the file for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Please see permission on their official website here: http://dennisadonis.net/permit.html

Will appreciate it if you can review the permission and restore once it satisfies wikimedia requirements.

Thanks.

---

Bonjour,

Les fichiers suivants ont été supprimés alors que j'ai envoyé le mail d'autorisation à deux reprises sur "[email protected]"

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bulletin_municipal_de_Beaupont_1982.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bulletin_municipal_de_Beaupont_1998.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%A9moires_de_M._Roger_Bourgeon.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%A9moires_de_M._Roger_Bourgeon.pdf

--Fetebeaupont (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you've sent an email to OTRS. Once they process the email that was sent, they will restore the files -FASTILY 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raul_Delgado_Wise.jpg

Hello Fastily,

I'm Mrushton-wiki, author of the entry for Raúl Delgado Wise (pending approval - in that huge queue - at (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Raúl_Delgado_Wise)

I submitted a photo to the wikimedia commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raul_Delgado_Wise.jpg), and asked the copyright holder of that photo - Montserrat García Guerrero - to send in the permission form authorizing it's use, which she did on December 5th at 3:21pm CST (I was CC'd on the message).

Could I ask you to clarify the reason for this image file's deletion? Was there a misstep on my part? Montserrat used the standard template to authorize use - is there a different form?

TIA,

Mark.

Has OTRS responded? It's possible they may require more information. Otherwise, please consider sending them another email to ask about the status of current ticket -FASTILY 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Baku Ferris Wheel

Should these images be deleted?

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baku_Ferris_Wheel.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baku_observation_wheel_2014.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bakı_şeytan_çarxı.png

See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Baku_Ferris_Wheel - 82.132.229.87 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, seeing how there is no FOP in Azerbaijan -FASTILY 02:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding BSD related closure at UDR

Fastily, I am curious, in this UDR you closed it as not done for the reason that "the copyright owner has also imposed additional terms which are fundamentally incompatible with BSD". What additional terms did the copyright owner impose? As far as I can see the copyright owner used the exact text of the BSD two-clause license with no additional terms. —RP88 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

1. "Copyright (c) 2005, Aroh Barjatya All rights reserved." - BSD ≠ All rights reserved
2. Copyright holder requires that the text of the BSD text be beside the image, which is a no-no -FASTILY 02:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Look at the the text I linked. The "All rights reserved" (and license reproduction clause) are actually in the legal text of the standard BSD license. The original author did not deviate from the BSD license, he reproduced it exactly. —RP88 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, I misread Jim's statement. The files still aren't okay for Commons, but for a different reason than what I originally thought; I'll re-close the discussion shortly. Regards, FASTILY 02:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As I can't see the deleted files, I don't know if they are actually in compliance. I was just arguing that the source PDF was validly BSD licensed. I am open to the idea that licenses like {{BSD}} and {{GFDL-1.2}} are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of Commons because of their license reproduction clauses. Indeed, that clause in GFDL-1.2 was one of the two reasons the WMF pursued the meta:Licensing update of 2009. However, even that resolution permitted contributors of images licensed under the GFDL-1.2 to opt-out and did not forbid the contribution of additional GFDL-1.2 images (although this was discouraged). —RP88 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

On a minor note, the license reproduction clause is the reason the {{BSD}} template reproduced the entire content of the license. That way a copy of the license is reproduced along with the image :-) —RP88 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, but sadly after the CC BY-SA 4.0 and FAL 1.3 version compatibility, many people in Commons stopped using FAL and switched back to GFDL 1.2 only. :( Jee 03:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments. While the WMF left open the idea that in the future GFDL-1.2 media might be disallowed because of the license reproduction clause, they did say that this would only happen if a future version of CC-BY-SA was strengthened to require surrounding content to be similarly required to conform to a ShareAlike license. So getting community support to deprecate these license would likely be a challenge, as this never happened. Fastily, sorry for cluttering your talk page with an off-topic discussion. —RP88 (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought about it, and I'm going to recuse myself from re-closing this discussion. It seems like there's a larger issue here, which has to do with the compatibility of BSD with Commons' scope. FWIW this may be better resolved via a VPC discussion. Regards, FASTILY 08:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for helping to maintain a cleaner place Commons Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -FASTILY 07:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Melomics files deletion

Can not understand why you deleted the files coming from melomics technology. Here we clearly say that these contents are published under CC0: http://geb.uma.es/melomics

Please link the file in question, it is unclear what you're referring to -FASTILY 07:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG

Hi, Fastily. I noticed you recently deleted File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG as a copyright violation -- given the explanations made on the file's talk page, was this really necessary? The uploader, User:Maryannz, has been openly editing as Maryann Corbett on Wikipedia for years, and it is hardly unusual for editors on Wikimedia projects to contribute their own text and images which they have previously published elsewhere online. I don't think it's typical to insist on OTRS permissions where there's a credible and independently supported claim that the uploader is the copyright holder. Even if not, though, in this case surely it would have been better to simply instruct the uploader to contact OTRS, and to tag the file with {{OTRS pending}} in the meantime? If she had failed to send the necessary permission within a few weeks, the image would have been automatically tagged for deletion. Psychonaut (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Bring back Teratoscincus przewalskii

Hello, I just notice the deletion of File:Teratoscincus przewalskii.jpg, more than one year later... I think this file was derived from this 1886 book, written by Alexander Strauch who died in 1893. Could you please undelete the file with applying the {{PD-scan|PD-old-70}} licence tag? Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the image in question: [10]. I'm pretty certain this wasn't created in 1893 -FASTILY 07:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha :D Indeed, it doesn't look like 1893 pictures. I thought it was some file I personnaly ulpoaded, since I added the picture on several articles, but obviously it's not an upload of mine. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Totodu74 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious Flickr account

The source of these uploads by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Damian_Vo look suspicious. The EXIF data is different for every picture and the Flickr account was just recently created. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

All nuked. EXIF credits press agencies, e.g. Reuters. Hope that helps, FASTILY 07:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion script detect OTRS (pending|received)

Hey Fastily, first I hope you are doing well and I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a wonderful Christmas and thank you for the enormous work you've put into Commons.

Would it be possible to add a check to your deletion script so it doesn't automatically delete (in case it's an automatic script) files that have {{OTRS pending}} on it (technically, it's easier to check whether the file is in the according category, I guess) or {{OTRS received}} on them when tagged with {{No permission}}? Sometimes the uploaders are newcomers and simply forget to remove the no-permission templates. If you're wondering about the occasion, it is Gerhard Roese and similar files by the uploader.

Again, Merry Christmas and a happy new Year! -- Rillke^(q?) 18:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification: permissions-commons-*@wikimedia.org send a template like "just add 'subst:OP" {{OTRS pending}} and all would be fine" without noticing that deletion of no-permission templates is required. As an experienced programmer by myself im used to follow instructions because I always fear to break some bot scripts :-) All the best to you, Bernd Hohmann (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing user warnings.

Hi,

I just noticed that your alter ego was (is?) marking files with {{No permission since}} without warning the uploader. It is in contradiction with our deletion rules. Could you please restore the images that you marked for deletion and which were later deleted without warning the uploaders and properly notify them of issues with their files?

Eg. all from here and probably more.

I suggest you also to stop using a bot for adding deletion templates until you ensure it notifies file uploaders as it is required. Ankry (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Lakewood Crossing-map.png

File:Lakewood Crossing-map.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

SounderBruce 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the Images which are deleted

Hi, fastily. You have deleted all the images/files I have uploaded. What should I do to restore them? the files are from these pages 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalvakuntla_Chandrashekar_Rao&action=history 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chief_Ministers_of_Telangana&action=history 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cabinet_ministers_of_Telangana&action=history 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_current_Indian_chief_ministers&action=history

Please help me.

Could you please link the images in question? It's unclear what you're referring to -FASTILY 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG

Hi, Fastily. I noticed you recently deleted File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG as a copyright violation -- given the explanations made on the file's talk page, was this really necessary? The uploader, User:Maryannz, has been openly editing as Maryann Corbett on Wikipedia for years, and it is hardly unusual for editors on Wikimedia projects to contribute their own text and images which they have previously published elsewhere online. I don't think it's typical to insist on OTRS permissions where there's a credible and independently supported claim that the uploader is the copyright holder. Even if not, though, in this case surely it would have been better to simply instruct the uploader to contact OTRS, and to tag the file with {{OTRS pending}} in the meantime? If she had failed to send the necessary permission within a few weeks, the image would have been automatically tagged for deletion. Psychonaut (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately OTRS permission is necessary for any text or images previously published elsewhere on the web. For the sake of consistency, I don't think we should be making exceptions to the rule. Kind regards, FASTILY 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:Katharine Ross 1966.JPG

I see it was at DR in 2013 and was kept. However, an uncropped copy of the photo shows a 1976 copyright notice. The film was from 1976. When I went to nominate this for DR, it was suggested the admin making the keep or delete decision should be contacted. Would you rather I take it to DR again? Thanks, We hope (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that this is a non-free work. I've gone ahead and speedy deleted it. Hope that helps, FASTILY 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As always, Thanks!! :) We hope (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Gnome-media-playback-sprite.png

Hello Fastily

And happy new year!

I need the help of an administrator about File:Gnome-media-playback-sprite.png. The file is protected but its category Category:Player icons need to change to Category:Media player icons. (A "player icon" is a football player too, so I renamed stuff a bit and moved pictures of football player icons to another cat.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Done! Hope that helps, FASTILY 05:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

copyrights problems

Hi Fastily, please look sometimes the contributions [11] from Derzsi Elekes Andor [12]. I suppose originator's real injuries in great style. He writes for himself own work (eigenes werk) and author (Urheber) and what can so not be and that in many pictures. THX and Merry Christmas. -- Biberbaer (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This could be a case of long term abuse. I've reported the user here so the community can have a look at this -FASTILY 20:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Your help. Regards -- Biberbaer (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|request reason here}}

Dear Fastily, DLindsley has mailed me on December 26 that you have blocked User:International-critics for evading scrutiny. He says to give you all clarifications if I want to appeal the block. As User:International-critics, <removed personal information> had temporarily too many professional activities on hand, another user: onlysilence was asked to take over for the time being. If you need some more clarification I am at all time at your disposal. Best wishes for the New Year Erik Pevernagie --213.143.60.58 12:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly represent an organization, I'd recommend using one account or coordinating your efforts between multiple accounts (i.e. publicly identifying all your accounts on wiki and uploading only one copy of each image), so it doesn't look like you're trying to evade scrutiny. Also, I'd recommend sending an email to COM:OTRS and clarifying the copyright status of the files uploaded by International-critics and onlysilence, because as of now they're going to be deleted for missing clear evidence of permission -FASTILY 20:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|request reason here}}

--Onlysilence (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Dear Fastily, I have sent following report to OTRS, but haven't had any reply. There is something about a waitinglist. Could you help? Many thanks;

"""Taking note of the recommendations of FASTILY and to make it simpler, transparent and unambiguous, I will see to it, that one account User: Onlysilence will be used for the uploads of the pictures.

As I explained to Fastily and Dlindsley, User: International-critics, to whom I had granted the licence to use all texts and images from and about my work, had too much professional work for the moment.

That was the reason why I grant a free content licence to User: Onlysilence for the uploads of my work.

FASTILY also asked me to send an email to COM:OTRS to clarify the copyright status of the files uploaded by International-critics and Onlysilence.

Can we agree that from now on solely User: Onlysilence will exercice the free content licence but that the uploads which have been done by International-critics can be validated.

Thank you for your cooperation

<removed personal info> """ --Onlysilence (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your understanding. I'm not going to unblock International-critics, since you seem to have stated it will no longer be used to edit. Also, OTRS is very busy (especially since it is a holiday weekend), so it may be a few days before someone gets back to you. Your patience is appreciated. -FASTILY 20:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris Street 1 2012-06-29.jpg

File:Paris Street 1 2012-06-29.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Civa (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris Street 2 2012-06-29.jpg

File:Paris Street 2 2012-06-29.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Civa (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OTRS request regarding User:International-critics and User:Onlysilence

Dear Fastily. There has been an OTRS request received in ticket:2014122710007199 regarding the users named above. Sadly I cannot follow the previous discussion, so I'd like to ask you to summarize the problem or open issue, if possible. Thank you. --Krd 12:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Krd. Without any comment on the copyright status of the images uploaded by either account, I blocked International-critics (which seemed to be used to evade scrutiny of the uploaded files) as a sock puppet of Onlysilence per this thread. If you feel there is a good reason to unblock International-critics, then feel free to do so. -FASTILY 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Krd 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Chevron Logo.svg

File:Chevron Logo.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

//  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 29 December 2014 16:34 (UTC) 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fastily!

Happy New Year!

Fastily,
Have a great 2015, and thanks for your contributions to Commons! INeverCry 21:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks INC! :) Happy New Years! -FASTILY 04:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy new yeaaar, a 2015 of good things, wishes happy holidays --Pava (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Returned undeletion discussion

Hi. You recently closed an undeletion request (File:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf), and I have brought it back to the community for further discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive bot question

Why is User talk:OgreBot/gallery not being archived by MiszaBot? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, the bot claims to not find any threads on the page.

Processing [[commons:User talk:OgreBot/gallery]]
0 Threads found on [[commons:User talk:OgreBot/gallery]]
Looking for: {{User:MiszaBot/config}} in [[commons:User talk:OgreBot/gallery]]
Processing 0 threads
There are only 0 Threads. Skipping

I'm not sure why this is, but if I had to guess, I'd assume it's a bug in MiszaBot. To be honest this isn't the first time I've observed strange behavior with the bot and I'm planning on writing a replacement for it. -FASTILY 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No real encyclopedic value is not a deletion reason

When I discuss a image that was in use on Wiktionary, deleting it because it has no real encyclopedic value is an insult. Wikipedia is not the end all and be all of Wikimedia projects, and we'd like to use Commons as we're promised as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, can you please link to the DR in question? -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary: [13] .--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Prosfilaes. I must say that, in this case, Fastily is right. The image is both off-topic (non-notable typeset text) and a copyvio (scanned from recent book). In use, but such use is unadvised (according to Wikitionary’s own rules about text as image), and, as a case of fair use, it should be locally hosted, anyway. Starting the year agreeing with Fastily on a non-trivial matter — must be an omen. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-opened it - Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Satisne.jpg. -- Geagea (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you restore my image you deleted

You deleted my image after I forwarded an email from the author granting permission to use File:Tresor WikiPic2.JPG and others. Can you please advise what more is needed, or maybe restore the image - or let me know if I have uploaded with the wrong license as I find it challenging absorbing all the tips and FAQs and policies around images and permissions.

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Regressionsanalys och korrelation - en liten fördjupning.webm

Could you please undelete this file? I was just about to add license information about the music (it is CC BY-SA, Music: Reflect by Stickinsect). Ainali (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be the same case for File:Repetition Kvot- och bråkräkning 2.webm and File:Rotfunktioners grafer.webm, but I cannot check that since they are deleted. Ainali (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, but the cited concern for both was "Copyrighted music intro and outro", so there is a possibility that, as is, these files are derivatives of non-free content -FASTILY 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The cited concern is very strange, since there are no outro. I believe it has been copied and pasted without even listening to the video. I added information on File:Regressionsanalys och korrelation - en liten fördjupning.webm and File:Rotfunktioners grafer.webm already (but perhaps there should be a seperate license review on that claim since the music comes from Jamendo?), I will ask for information on File:Repetition Kvot- och bråkräkning 2.webm today, it was not the same music piece in that intro. Ainali (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:P4A - Wikimedia Foundation - WikiRiffs.webm

Hi Fastily. You recently deleted the file File:P4A - Wikimedia Foundation - WikiRiffs.webm as a copyright violation. I think you may have missed my comment on the file's talk page, saying that the video is actually not a copyright violation, as the brief appearance of the copyrighted film poster is de minimis. As a result, if you could undelete the file, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. —Mr. Granger (talk  · contribs) 22:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right! File restored per DM. Hope that helps, FASTILY 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Santa Croce 1.jpg File:Santa Croce 2.jpg File:Santa Croce 3.jpg and File:Santa Croce 4.jpg

Hi! I'm writing to you because you have delete 4 photos that I uploaded. As it was written on the template "Unless verification of permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted 15 days after this template was added and the uploader was notified" and the template was added on 27 December 2014. I can't be sure that the license I have sent to the OTRS team is correct, but could you temporally undelete the four photos? The text says also "and the uploader was notified" and I have never received a notification. If you can't, don't worry, I'm aware that I have to write on the Otrs Noticeboard and I have just written there. Thanks and please excuse me if my message is useless. --Lkcl it (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, then OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent. If you wish, you can ask for a status update at the otrs noticeboard -FASTILY 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

You are fast. Less than 10 minutes after being nominated I was just adding the proper licence to File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3825 stamp (Kremlin Red Star and USSR Arms) coil.jpg but when I hit save you had already deleted it. The same stamp in single form File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3825 stamp (Kremlin Red Star and USSR Arms).jpg is properly licenced with {{PD-RU-exempt}} which is what I was adding. Please revert Fastily. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Done :) Hope that helps, FASTILY 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the nom is in fact good because it is a 3D image even though the stamps are PD. An 8+ year editor Michael Romanov is usually accurate. Anyway I've changed the licence but the source does not actually link to the image, so I'll leave it up to you to decide which is correct. Thanks anyway. Ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Linked-open-data-Europeana-video.ogv

Hi, I do not understand why this has been deleted. The video itself clearly states (YouTube copy) that it is CC BY-SA. Please restore it, along with uses in WP articles. Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted photos are being used in this video. The person who made this video can't put someone else's work on the video, and call it its own. 1989 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked Europeana for comment. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Mia Ridge at GLAM-Wiki 2013.webm

Hello Fastily. I write regarding the deletion of the file named above. I am just wondering why it was deleted. I had a notice from User:1989 about this, so I asked them here and they suggested that I need to contact you. The recording is my own work and was made at a conference hosted by Wikimedia UK with the knowledge of the speaker. Any insight you can offer is appreciated. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Ram Narayan at the Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg

Hey, could you have started a deletion discussion instead of deleting the file directly, because this was not an obvious copyright violation. There is a rationale given for the public domain status of the file, and the file went through the FAC process that included a review of media, which it passed (see here). Could you have notified me at least? This is not an OTRS case, so I'm confused. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted file as below

   (Törlési napló); 21:58 . . Fastily (vitalap | szerkesztései) törölte a következő lapot: File:Temesvár Jenő herceg tér, térzenével - 1916 (1).tif ‎(No source since 27 December 2014: you may re-upload the file, but please cite the file's source)
   (Törlési napló); 21:58 . . Fastily (vitalap | szerkesztései) törölte a következő lapot: File:Rathaus, Wiesbaden - 1893.tif ‎(No source since 27 December 2014: you may re-upload the file, but please cite the file's source)
   (Törlési napló); 21:58 . . Fastily (vitalap | szerkesztései) törölte a következő lapot: File:Kurhaus, Karlsbad - 1913 (1).tif ‎(No source since 27 December 2014: you may re-upload the file, but please cite the file's source)

@Fastily You deleted theese files, stating that there is no source. The source is Metapolisz Images. When I upload something thats not my photo, stating the source is Metapolisz Images, that means, I own theese postcards (photos), so I have the right to upload them being older than 70 ys old. As I am not a collector, the cards - after being scanned - are usually donated to Hungarian Museums, basicly the Hungarian National Museum and the Budapest Collection of Kiscell. The number (1) means, that this photo is the pichture side of the card. The (2) marked back side and maybe other belonging are published in the Metapolisz DVD line, so further work on the subject is possible. That's all. yours: Derzsi Elekes Andor

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Mia Ridge at GLAM-Wiki 2013.webm

Hello Fastily. I write regarding the deletion of the file named above. I am just wondering why it was deleted. I had a notice from User:1989 about this, so I asked them here and they suggested that I need to contact you. The recording is my own work and was made at a conference hosted by Wikimedia UK with the knowledge of the speaker. Any insight you can offer is appreciated. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited concern was "Copyrighted photos are being used in this presentation."; Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. -FASTILY 08:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Ram Narayan at the Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg

Hey, could you have started a deletion discussion instead of deleting the file directly, because this was not an obvious copyright violation. There is a rationale given for the public domain status of the file, and the file went through the FAC process that included a review of media, which it passed (see here). Could you have notified me at least? This is not an OTRS case, so I'm confused. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited concern was "Posted to source [Ram Narayan sarangi master at Shiraz Arts Festival] as All Rights Reserved. Only free files are allowed on Commons.". Is this accurate? -FASTILY 08:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It was uploaded to YouTube under the "Standard YouTube License" but the uploader is not the copyright holder, the copyright holder is the Iranian culture ministry (?) (I don't remember the exact name, it's on the page). The copyright has expired in Iran and there is no copyright for such a file in the U.S. for lack of a treaty, so the file can be hosted here because it's standard to refer to the country's copyright in such a case. Check the discussion in the FA candidacy. Should I start an undeletion request to discuss this further? Hekerui (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down; we are not trying to be difficult. While I am personally unsure of the file's copyright status, since you think there may be a possibility that the file is free, I can restore it for DR -FASTILY 03:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I did not intend to come across as heated or accuse you of being difficult, I was merely pondering how best to proceed. Text that lack tone or inflection fail to convey intent sometimes. All good? Thank you and best regards Hekerui (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted resources even though I have updated the info

Hi I updated the following resources and you still removed them why is that? The claim is missing source but in fact I had included the source in a later entry for:

• Egypt.Story.pdf
• Egypt.Science.pdf
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Egypt.Islamic.Text.pdf
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Egypt.Computer.IT.pdf.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Computer.Arabic.pdf.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arabic.Language.pdf

Is there another reason whey they were still removed? --Kerberosmansour (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to specify a direct link to the source file; making a vague reference to 'moe.gov.eg' is not sufficient to retrain the file on Commons. Feel free to re-upload the files, but be sure to make this clear in the file description page. -FASTILY 03:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fotografías subidas por mi

Estimado Administrador Fastily

De acuerdo a sus instrucciones envié mail siguiendo las instrcciones que tu me diste en cada una de las fotografías que solicite restaurar. Por favor me puede indicar cuanto tiempo demora la respuesta del mail y además indicarme si el mail que yo envié a OTRS tiene algún defecto o bien necesita más información . Es mi deber indicarle que yo soy dueño de estas fotografías , pero no soy su creador debido a que la mayoría fueron creadas hace mas de 100 años y las mas nuevas tienen 75 años de su creación. Esperando su respuesta lo saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you for doing that. OTRS will restore the files once they process the email(s) you sent -FASTILY 01:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Fastily, you forgot the talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done. — Revi 14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

62 Pictures deleted: File:The Dufresne House 04.jpg and File:The Dufresne House 11.jpg

Hi,

On december 13, 2014, I wrote you about two pictures uploaded by me that was deleted by you (File:The Dufresne House 04.jpg and File:The Dufresne House 11.jpg). I asked you if it was possible to restore those pictures, but I didn't get any answer... So, is it possible or is it easier that I uploaded them again? What do you suggest ? Thanks. --Thomas1313 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I haven't gotten a straight answer from anybody at OTRS. I'm not an OTRS member so I cannot verify the status of the ticket and/or flag the aforementioned files. You may wish to contact COM:OTRS directly about having the files restored -FASTILY 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please restore File:NTNU_Trondheim_graduates_by_subject_2013_II.png

Hi, can you please restore the file File:NTNU_Trondheim_graduates_by_subject_2013_II.png. We have received a propper OTRS email confirming the licence at Ticket#2014102810007888 "Jeg, Ole Kristen Solbjørg, seniorrådgiver ved rektors stab for utdanning, NTNU, har, på vegne av institusjonen, alle rettigheter til denne grafiske fremstillingen: NTNU Trondheim graduates by subject 2013 II.png Jeg tillater, på vegne av NTNU, at filen lastes opp på Wikimedia Commons under fri lisens, cc-by-sa 3.0 Ved bruk skal rettighetshaver krediteres slik: (Grafikk: NTNU. Kilde: DBH)". Kind regards, Nsaa (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nsaa (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

cc-by-sa-4.0-no not a valid license?

This is clearly the case as you've deleted two photos carrying this license. Since when is this invalid? If this really is true, please delete the rest of my uploads as well, as they carry the same license. BR Siri Johannessen (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fastily (talk · contribs), please restore the pictures and , see the response here User_talk:Siri_J#Copyright_status:_File:.C2.ABEdda_Flora.C2.BB_-_IMO_9386380.JPG. Thanks! --Nsaa (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You removed my photo

I had license to the phil goldfeder official portrait you deleted. I still haven't received a response. Can you please undo this deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfj23 (talk • contribs) 2015-01-15T17:53:45‎ (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarify: File:Tannenberg signature.svg

Hello, This file was uploaded under PD license, since the author (Tannenburg) died in the early 1800s. Can you clarify what permissions should have been used, beyond PD-old? Sadly, I was not informed that there was a problem with the permissions at the time it was tagged. Can you tell me who tagged it, so I can ask them why they tag files without notifying the uploader? I routinely notify editors when there is a problem, especially if the file has a legitimate value to Wikimedia. Thank you, Gaff (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, just so you know, I asked about this file before uploading it here. I was told that it would not be a problem. Gaff (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, why did you tag it as missing permission? :o -FASTILY 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Weird! I must have clicked a wrong button. Thanks for reviewing. I was thinking about this, that since I don't technically know when this signature was first published, it may not be PD. I'm still too new here to understand the fine points. Thoughts? Gaff (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop removing my photos

I uploaded all photos with correct licence, from own sourse and you removed it, becouse of no source? Kidding? --Winnetou14 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to list the file(s) in question; it's unclear what you're referring to -FASTILY 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Bambu square.jpg

G'day, you might want to try again; have a look at what's between the image and the top of the summary. YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation. It was taken off T2 Design's Google Plus page. Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

and the template will not show the speedy delete reason due to the urls. Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

BLOGアルバム.JPG

Hi, Fastily. Can you explain why you deleted this file? It was uploaded by author and I don't see any reason why he or she have to send OTRS-permission. --Алый Король (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The file has been perviously published elsewhere on the internet and so we need an email sent to OTRS by the copyright holder confirming that s/he has granted permission for the file to be hosted under a free license on Commons -FASTILY 07:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The file has been perviously published elsewhere on the internet can you provide link? If it has been published elsewhere you should delete it with tag fair-use and provide link, am I right? --Алый Король (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The uploader sourced the file to [14]. And no, because that encourages re-uploads of inappropriate content. -FASTILY 08:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The uploader sourced the file to [15] and it's obvious that he linked actress' blog, but not images on this blog. The uploader post this link just to let us know who is the person on the photo. It's absolutely wrong way of uploading but you cannot delete image with any duplicates in Internet just because you dong't like manner of presentation.--Алый Король (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File:B.C. Lions, Jack Hutchinson VPL 84780JA (15278721144) crop.jpg

Bad delete I'm afraid. I fixed the licence prior to your delete, which mirrors File:B.C. Lions, Jack Hutchinson VPL 84780JA (15278721144).jpg. Connormah (talk | contribs) 08:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Connormah, I wasn't aware that {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} was a valid license tag! Guess you learn something new everyday... :o -FASTILY 09:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporarely undeleted

File:Reek, maison Smits facteurs d'orgues.JPG has to be kept deleted. The other one File:Reek, statue Smits facteurs d'orgues.JPG probably is undelatable but may stay deleted. Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To get back my photos.

Hi!

I'm JEMilani, an italian wikipedia editor. I write pages since some months.I'm not so expert then on the rules you have here. I did some pages about the monastery I attend, and I get erased and locked my photos from the pages, although I was allowed to use them. Now the website of the monastery from which I took the photos has published the same license You have on wikicommon, so I think I can use the photos without any legal conseguence. I ask you to unlock them, so I can use.

The photos I wish you unlock are the one about my master, Tetsugen Serra, the master Tetsugyu Soin, and the monasteries Enso-ji and Sanbo-ji. You'll find the relative pages on my personal page.

Thank you from now for your attention and disponibility.

--JEMilani (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please link the image(s) in question? It's unclear what you're referring to -FASTILY 10:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

photos of Heidegger

Hi, you deleted two photos that I uploaded ([16], [17]).
I tried to ask the copyright status to various individuals and institutions, 'principally':

• Some members of the Martin-Heidegger-Gesellschaft but those who answered me didn't know the copyright status;
• the Harald Fischer Verlag (that sold the «Mikrofiche Edition» of the Illustierte zeitung, who published one of the photos in November 1933) 'from that' was told me « We produced a reproduction of the Illustrierte Zeitung (complete work) but do not hold any copyright to the original edition or the material included. If you want to make sure that you have the right to publish the photograph on wikimedia commons, I suggest that you try to find information on the photographer or else refer to the regulations applying to so called orphan works and try to find out if they allow to publish the photopgraph in your case.»
• the University of Konstanz (where I download for free the book from where I toke the photos) 'from that', on January 12, was told me: «We will check our information concerning the copyright for this publication and I will get back to you in a few days.» but until now they didn't answered me.

Can you tell something about the «regulations applying to so called orphan works»? is possible to publish them like «orphan works»? can you help me? have you got any suggestions?

Waiting for reply,
best regards.--Karlzeno (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'orphan works', but in order for a file to be hosted on Commons, it must have known, verifiable source information. Until/Unless we have this, the file(s) will need to remain hidden -FASTILY 22:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the answer.

About the 'orphan works': I'm not an expert of 'copyright', that is why I was asking to you. Anyway it is probably this. Do you know someone who can tell me more about it? or a specific page where I can ask?
About the status of the copyright of the photos: do you know some website where I could ask about it?--Karlzeno (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

please delete this file

• File:BLOGプロフィール.JPG
• File:BLOGアルバム.JPG

same uploader, same subject. very suspicious copyright status. --61.245.25.2 16:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Already done by Natuur12 -FASTILY 22:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Léon Printemps en 1924.jpg

I think this picture is also eligible for undeletion per this request. It is also mentioned in Ticket:2014090310013625. Jee 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done too! -FASTILY 05:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Jee 06:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hello :) 210tony210 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Paris Hotel Room

Hello, you uploaded a lot of files to the category "Hotel rooms", with the onls description "Paris Hotel Room", but none of these actually show a hotel room. I moved them to "Category:Unidentified locations in France", and I'd like to recommend you have another look at those files and add proper descriptions and a suitable category, since without that the files are kind of useless. Thanks! --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've recategorized a number of these photos and will try to get around to doing the rest today. Thanks for letting me know! -FASTILY 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

File:William Herschel Museum.jpg

Hi Fastily. Please could you undelete this file? If I recall correctly, it's a photo I took of the outside of the building, and as such the CC license covers all of the necessary permissions. I think I accidentally tagged it as OTRS pending while tagging the photos of the inside of the building, for which I wanted an OTRS record that I had permission for the commercial usage side of the license, and that OTRS tag has recently been added to the other photos in the set, e.g.: [18]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, done! -FASTILY 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, have you received my email message? /St1995 12:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No...? -FASTILY 06:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you check email again? /St1995 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I did, and I saw your message. However, could you please explain to me why you do not wish to discuss the concerns stated in the email publicly on wiki? I say this because from what I can see in the email, it seems like you are deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny. Regards, FASTILY 22:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion on incomplete OTRS verification

Hi, images that you deleted were undeleted today, but on asking if the OTRS verification was sufficient it turns out it was not. See Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Request to confirm release from the artist, rather than the gallery. I have asked for re-deletion, but have no idea if this conservative approach to copyright will be adhered to. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I had a look, but unless I'm missing something, this seems to be near resolution. Regards, FASTILY 06:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It is perfect now. Thanks all. Jee 03:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Roy Rogers (guitarist) 2009.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Roy Rogers (guitarist) 2009.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A snicky tag on my file. Why?

My file File:Pull-up on one and another.gif is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. All of a sudden, without receiving any notice, I found out the "no permission" tag on it saying: "there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license". Sorry, but it's beyond my understanding. What is wrong with my file? ShustovVal (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As stated here, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, have you received my email message? /St1995 12:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No...? -FASTILY 06:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you check email again? /St1995 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I did, and I saw your message. However, could you please explain to me why you do not wish to discuss the concerns stated in the email publicly on wiki? I say this because from what I can see in the email, it seems like you are deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny. Regards, FASTILY 22:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already proposed such arguments on COM:UND, and vote "oppose" has been the only one (who nominated it for deletion). /St1995 20:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. I get that you seem to realize your arguments for keeping the file are invalid in some way, so you don't want to present them publicly where Huntster might see them! This is wholly inappropriate, and I won't have anything to do with this. Here's the bottom line: if you present weak/invalid arguments in deletion/undeletion discussions, then don't expect anyone to take them seriously... -FASTILY 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tolerated and human

I make my work but somebody very-very smart and clever have decided to make better delete files. Why? Some part of our ukranian community is shocked becouse some yousers permanent delete our files which is very need and have all licenses and all rights are correct. Do you want to be right and delete, cut? Ok. We have recept. If you politics is to push back, separate. Ok. Yours rules destroy our world WikiCommunity. So we create Wiki but our own. And we will upload all deleted files in our own Wiki server. You provide good idea to make world ideal and delete, make poor and lose. Ok, good luck!! --DmitrOst (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a damn who's right or who's wrong. If you make personal attacks towards another user again for whatever reason, I'll see to it that you're blocked immediately. -FASTILY 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Telemark vapen.png

You deleted this as File is corrupt, empty, or in a disallowed format. I restored it and it looks good. What is the problem? It is/was a widely used file. CommonsDelinker has removed the file for example here. Do you have any plans to clean up/fix worldwide? --MGA73 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh that's so strange! I was trying to delete an old revision of the file that was not thumbnailing properly, but I must have clicked a wrong button :o I'll have my bot go through and revert CommonsDelinker. -FASTILY 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Or we could perhaps change to File:Telemark våpen.svg now that we are at it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Done! I've also replaced the obvious usages of the png version with the svg version. It seems like the rest of the links are created with template transclusions which need to be manually updated. Regards, FASTILY 04:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of 2015 Paris attacks.gif

I would just like to clarify things, because I kind of feel like I had the blanket pulled over my face. I understand the policy which you say that the file violates, but I do not understand how it is a violation when I created the picture by adding the points onto the map myself. I even credited the map site which I used to make the image. --Undescribed (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

ZeeMaps seems to use Google Maps to generate the maps. Maps generated by Google Maps are subject to copyright by Google. That said, creating a derivative (e.g. placing pins on the map) of Google's copyrighted work neither grants you full and exclusive rights nor does it grant you the right to publish the map under whichever license you choose (e.g. a free license). If this still isn't making any sense to you, I recommend carefully re-reading COM:DW and COM:FU -FASTILY 03:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it does make perfect sense to me, the only other questions I have are why you assume that ZeeMaps uses Google maps to generate the maps? Is it the format of the maps? Is there a copyright notice regarding usage of ZeeMaps? --Undescribed (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it does, yes, and yes -FASTILY 03:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reconsideration of deletion of image from train crash

An image from the NTSB's Flickr stream was removed from Valhalla train crash on enwiki after you deleted it here, on the grounds that it was posted to Flickr under an incompatible CC license.

Could you reconsider that decision? Yes, it is posted as CC-NC-ND, but we should disregard that since, as an agency of the U.S. government, all works taken by National Transportation Safety Board employees are PD and thus no other restrictions can be applied. I don't know why they choose to upload them under a more restrictive license, probably because (as usual) someone at NTSB is confused about this, but they shouldn't be deleted because of licensing restrctions that can't legally apply. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, that's a good point, and I've posted this to VPC for input from the community. Regards, FASTILY 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:SAIKO.jpg

Hi, last week I uploaded a file which is copyrighted and owned by myself... but is deleted. I wonder what happen? I did sent the OTRS Confirmation that I, myself is copyright owner of this file. but there is no reply from [email protected] Please tell me what should I do? thanks a lot!

Great, thanks for doing that! OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 05:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Gyan_Kosh_vol_1.pdf

Dear Fastily, You have mentioned in deletion log that the file doesnt have a license tag. How can you miss seeing it? Its clearly added that its in {{PD-India}} and there is also a request at Talk page to remove deletion tag as license tag is added. Please restore the file, as it not having file, a huge typing work at Wikisource has stopped. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Finn Malmgren.jpg

I'm somewhat new to commons, can you explain why you deleted File:Finn Malmgren.jpg? There was a request for deletion that was closed with the decision to keep by another administrator. Your deletion log claims their was no license when it was clearly marked as being public domain. Suppafly (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-URAA}} is deprecated and no longer considered to be a valid license tag. You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please choose between {{PD-URAA-Simul}} or {{PD-1996}} for license tags -FASTILY 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

How to avoid deletion after sending email to OTRS

Hi,

I have a file that was deleted because of "no permission", but between the notice and deletion I had already sent the email to OTRS.

How should I proceed in these cases so that the file is not deleted until OTRS has a change to process the email? (I've just found out that their average backlog is 52 days)

• Add to the discussion that the email was sent
• Add to the media information that an email was sent
• or another action

Thanks in advance! --Shil88 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag the file with {{subst:OP}}. The template is auto-configured to flag the file for deletion after 60 days, so if your request has not been handled by then, it may have been rejected, and you need to follow up with OTRS -FASTILY 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of 3 images

I sent this e-mail to [email protected] but the 3 files were deleted:

I hereby affirm that I, Mario Rodríguez Martín, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julio_Faustino_Mariano.jpg , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julio_Conde.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atocha_53.jpg . I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Mario Rodriguez Martin (user: Mariorm86). 6-February-2015.

I need these images are restored in their wikis with their categories, comments, etc. Thanks.

Great, thanks for doing that! OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Est Dolavon FCCH 1915.jpg

The file had license. It was a typo and I corrected the error. I explain to the user requested deletion and as always make fools asking to delete all: do not ever respond! As always take me the desire to contribute. Can I upload the photo again? Is 1915! It had the license {{PD-Old}} and {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Did you not see it? --Gastón Cuello (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is annoying and painful that one wants to talk about and it is simply ignored. Happens to me many times here, even if send you many messages or tag it, they never respond and erased everything without listening to explanations. I'm not a vandal, from 3 years ago I upload my and historical material. Just ask administrators respect, no respect me here. Once I already went and insulted at all. Just ask to read when it is explained. My case was just a mistake of typing that it was arranged, it is not an image that violates nothing because it is very old. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That ignore happens always, I don't know why you (administrators) only erased images, there are several that compliance with the rules and for "x" cause them deleted without reading the explanation of the user that submitted them. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if I insulted. Just ask that when you pass something that administrators listen to the users, because not all are bad. I already uploaded the photo with the proper licenses. Regards. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Stefica.jpg OTRS

hi, User:Kiwi-vilic said "An email with copy of a written permission was sent to OTRS by Klaudia Tot on the 9th February". Could you check that email?--太刻薄 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an OTRS member, but I'm sure that the file will be restored soon once an OTRS member process the email that was sent. Regards, FASTILY 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage_ambush.svg

Hi, the Battle of Villers-Bocage article has just been edited to remove this file. If it is the one I am thinking of, and can no longer see in the article or on th Commons, it was a map with pins in showing the location of various units. It was created by a fellow editor - who is no longer active, but uploaded it for use - based off various sources, which I believe should have been attributed on the images page. So I am at a loss of why it would have been removed due to copyright violations. The article also went throuh the FA process, and thr copyright nature of any of the images was - afaik - was never brouvht up, and that is one of the categories an article needs to pass for it to be promoted as far as i remember. Could you explain why the image was removed? Thanks EnigmaMcmxc (talk)`

The cited concern was "Reusing copyrighted works (the 2 books from Taylor and Forty) into a derived work does not permit relicensing it with an open licence, without an explicit permission from authors, even if their attributions are present.". Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Although, your response makes me wonder if this will end up effecting all maps created for the Commons based off published works?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. We examine each map on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is a derivative, and IME, most of the time (blatant copyvios aside), we find that they're not. -FASTILY 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have looked over the policy you mentioned above, and relooked at the sources used. Both books do not contain a map like what was used. Forty's work uses period aerial photographs, with numbers overlayed on the map to a key that informs the reader what they represent. Taylor has a map of the town and nearby hill. IIRC, the latter was used as a guideline for the deleted Commons map and the former was used as a basis for additional details and to mark down the location of the various units involved in the battle. If i am not mistaken, the aerial photographs are in the public domain. The location of units are not protected by copyright (i do believe). That only leaves the basic map, which was in part based off Taylor's (if i am not mistaken). Does that still count as a derived work, or does ground exist to have the map undeleted?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Structure of Russian exports to China.jpg

You made a mistake with the removal of this file: File:Structure of Russian exports to China.jpg. There is OTRS ticket, which is specified in the template for all files from Category:Files from Business Journal. + Ping User:Rubin16. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems like you're correct here -FASTILY 14:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Villers-Bocage_ambush.svg

Hi, the Battle of Villers-Bocage article has just been edited to remove this file. If it is the one I am thinking of, and can no longer see in the article or on th Commons, it was a map with pins in showing the location of various units. It was created by a fellow editor - who is no longer active, but uploaded it for use - based off various sources, which I believe should have been attributed on the images page. So I am at a loss of why it would have been removed due to copyright violations. The article also went throuh the FA process, and thr copyright nature of any of the images was - afaik - was never brouvht up, and that is one of the categories an article needs to pass for it to be promoted as far as i remember. Could you explain why the image was removed? Thanks EnigmaMcmxc (talk)`

The cited concern was "Reusing copyrighted works (the 2 books from Taylor and Forty) into a derived work does not permit relicensing it with an open licence, without an explicit permission from authors, even if their attributions are present.". Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Although, your response makes me wonder if this will end up effecting all maps created for the Commons based off published works?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. We examine each map on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is a derivative, and IME, most of the time (blatant copyvios aside), we find that they're not. -FASTILY 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have looked over the policy you mentioned above, and relooked at the sources used. Both books do not contain a map like what was used. Forty's work uses period aerial photographs, with numbers overlayed on the map to a key that informs the reader what they represent. Taylor has a map of the town and nearby hill. IIRC, the latter was used as a guideline for the deleted Commons map and the former was used as a basis for additional details and to mark down the location of the various units involved in the battle. If i am not mistaken, the aerial photographs are in the public domain. The location of units are not protected by copyright (i do believe). That only leaves the basic map, which was in part based off Taylor's (if i am not mistaken). Does that still count as a derived work, or does ground exist to have the map undeleted?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

editprot request

Thank you for your deletions. May be you overlooked the note in my request to delete template To SVG: I asked in File talk:Azerilanguage.png#Edit request to change the transclusion. Now it is still there, but the template isn't. When you have performed the change, you may as well delete the file talk page.
BTW, may I ask you to reduce the too high protection level of {{ShouldBeSVG}} (transcluded 723 times) that established users can edit it; I intend some housekeeping maintenance there. Thank you sarang♥사랑 06:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done and done! -FASTILY 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. When you tried to unprotect {{ShouldBeSVG}} the redirect led you automatically to the main template {{Convert to SVG}} and you unprotected that instead... Never mind, protection levels around are too high - but if you think it necessary you may reprotect it again. I just have to ask you once more, to unprotect {{ShouldBeSVG}}. -- sarang♥사랑 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, done now! -FASTILY 18:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Nazre hayat 2.jpg

File:Nazre hayat 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

INeverCry 11:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

File:SmokingWhileRiding.jpg

File:SmokingWhileRiding.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

INeverCry 11:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts

Hi Fastily, you restored uploads by "Mika-photography" and "Mikamote". First of all, thank you for this! I then started to replace the permission missing tags in those files by the user template {{MikaVäisänen}}. You reverted some of those replacements. Why? --Martina talk 15:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your addition added a non-existent template. Is this what you intended? -FASTILY 03:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. That was a mistake. I'll fix them. Thanks. --Martina talk 04:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Image

How do I get my image,

File:Regula ao vivo.jpg

Regula ao vivo

, back?

A friend of mine took the pic, and I've got that conversation, if you need it so much, ask before you act. Stay safe. Ruicguerreiro (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the deletion log, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 03:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Ducadocan.jpg

The file source was included days ago. Please, be more careful.--EfePino (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that was deliberate. The chain of attribution you cite in the source does not make any sense. If you didn't create this image, then why are you linking what appear to be unrelated maps as a source? This seems deliberately misleading and isn't doing your case much good -FASTILY 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from snowy Boston

Greetings:

A few weeks ago, several denizens of the UnDr page discussed an informal agreement that we would keep UnDRs open for at least 24 hours. I'm not sure whether you were part of that discussion, but I'd appreciate it if you would join the group. You've recently closed a couple of requests where I asked the requester to do something or tell us something before he or she had a chance to respond. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for the message. If I closed something specific that you were wanted open for longer, please let me know so I can restore it to the UDR page. I speedy close discussions where a violation of our policies is unambiguous, or in situations where I believe a response from the uploader would not change the file's deleted status. Regards, FASTILY 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Luisa Fernanda RUDI

Saludos!!! Por qué has borrado la foto cuando la DONO la CEDIO el AUTOR de esa foto? Por esa regla tendrias que borrar las fotos de Obama, Bush, Clinton?

Link the file in question - it's unclear what you're referring to -FASTILY 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Czeslaw Milosz, 1986.jpg

What was the problem with this image? Why it has not been first discussed at the Deletion requests? --WTM (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It was flagged as missing clear evidence of permission from the copyright holder for more than 7 days. Files meeting this criterion are subject to on-sight speedy deletion -FASTILY 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Category deletion

Mind deleting Category:Flags inspired by the Union flag for me? I have replaced it with the more appropriately named Flags resembling the Union Flag. As always, thanks :) Fry1989 ^eh? 20:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done! Best, FASTILY 23:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Spinosaurus aegyptiacus(National Geographic picture).jpg

Hi Fastily, This file has not been successfully saved on my computer, but I need it urgently. Could you restore this file for one day in order to I will been able to download it on my computer. After that you can delete this file again. When you restore the file inform me on my talk page. I hope for your understanding. Leogorgon (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Leogorgon: [19] -FASTILY 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Leogorgon (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Zlatko Zahovic.jpg

Hi. So why was this file deleted again, it was just undeleted a week ago? --Sporti (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It was renominated for deletion by an IP, and I must have missed the note in the log. I must say that this looks like a professional press photo or newspaper/magazine clipping. Furthermore, the file's EXIF contains no authorship details and this is the uploader's only contribution. This is missing clear evidence of permission imo -FASTILY 23:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Archived undel

Hi, as you were involved in a related undel, I would like to draw your attention to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#2014122610009322_C-SPAN_Student. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Dorothy Janis.jpg

Hi Fastily. I restored the file File:Dorothy Janis.jpg - the photo isn't copyvio since the photographer passed away in 1940 -> PD-old. Trijnstel_talk 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Czech Coal advertisement.JPG

It seems as if I haven't been able to rush as needed. Was the deletion so urgent? --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 00:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't clear if you were still planning on doing it. I guess if you'd like to do it now, I can restore it, or if you're busy now, please reference the links I've provided at UDR and ping me once you've found time to create a crop. -FASTILY 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Andrey Batychko aka Batt.jpg

File:Andrey Batychko aka Batt.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A.Savin 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Chichester Cathedral Plan.jpg

Hi Fastily, yesterday I added the missing source entry, so would you please explain your deletion or withdraw it. Not sure, should I have removed the missing source banner? Thanks, --Achim (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. Sorry for the inconvenience -FASTILY 22:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a non-controversial clean-up?

Has the concept of Right to be forgotten been introduced to Wikipedia and its sister projects? Or who decides, about non-controversiality? --Wuselig (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

With regards to what? Please link the page or file you're referring to -FASTILY 05:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to find the link for you, I saw that you only deleted empty pages, since the original had been moved to another place beforehand. So everything seems to be in good order. Sorry for the bother. --Wuselig (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Usine d'Auteuil.jpg - Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg

Dear Fastily,

Despite the autorship informations the files have been deleted. Can I ask you the reason? Could you restore them? I send you the link to my conversation with Fæ for further information. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6#Usine_d.27Auteuil.jpg_-_Ancienne_pompe_.C3.A0_feu_d.27Auteuil.jpg

Best regards,

Eaudeparislf

When OTRS processes the email that you sent, they will restore the file. Regards, FASTILY 05:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

Eaudeparislf

File:En-us-high school.ogg

Hi Fastily, I've restored this file, as it is in use on 3 projects. --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio, I deleted the file because as you can see the user is experiencing difficulty with a bug in the software when uploading a new version of the file. If the links are removed by CommonsDelinker, we can easily rollback the bot. -FASTILY 07:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

O.k., that was your rationale. I just thought you might have overlooked the in-use thing. I had recommended him to upload the longer version under a different filename; so thereafter we could dupe-merge it. Anyway, do as you like, as now I understand your rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I actually like your idea better. Let's merge the files when the user uploads a new version of the file under a different title. Regards, FASTILY 07:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

File: Aya Saad Eldeen ٍٍSayed.jpg

Dear, Why the photo of File:Aya Saad ELdeen Sayed.jpg is deleted, the Author Aya send and email, and I send also another email now to the email : [email protected], I want to restore the photo--أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

When OTRS processes the email that you sent, they will restore the file. Regards, FASTILY 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How I can send to OTRS her from wikipedia--أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

COM:OTRS -FASTILY 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

file: 5.34am 20th March 2003 by Nicholas Charles Willaims.jpeg

File was removed without requesting authentication, even though its license was marked as 'author's affirmation available on request'. The only alternative I had among those options was to upload a personal e-mail to the internet. I've contacted permissions via e-mail. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunglass hut logo

I've had a query about File:Sunglasshutnew.jpg from the uploader on my talk page. You deleted it a few days ago for having no licence, I think it's simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. Would you have any objection to it being restored? January (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems accurate, I restored the file and cleaned up the file description page -FASTILY 20:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

He has now decided to edit war on his talk page. Would you mind doing something about it? DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

MadriCR

Dear Fastly: I'm feel a bit embarrassed because I see today your message and I can't put the OTRS template in MadriCR files :(. Is there any chances to restore his files and I edit the descriptions to include the OTRS permission?. I'm so sorry for the triple tasks :(. Superzerocool (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're too busy to do it, that's alright, but please consider asking another OTRS volunteer to help and/or perform the task. I can restore them for you again if you like, but please first agree to set aside time to update the file description pages. -FASTILY 06:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Vladimir Keylin Sport News 29 08 14.ogv

• File:Vladimir Keylin Scat-tv.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Vladimir Keylin Nikolay Merkushkin2013.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Keylin 2018.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Dear Fastily. This video-file I received directly from administration (administrator Maria Ubkina) of Samara TV-Channel Scat-TNT - STV News (website: http://stv.scat-tv.ru) for wikipedia purpose. Videographer (Igor Rostyagaev) who did this video works directly on this TV Channel. I'd like to ask to please restore this video file.--Sport7 (talk)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

MadriCR II

About time, I'll do tonight (I'm in UTC-3 timezone). Thanks Superzerocool (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Superzerocool: sounds good, done! -FASTILY 20:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Some files are corrupted :( See this example. Superzerocool (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's correct. It looks like when MadriCR was uploading the files, only half the bytes made it (usually occurs if the user's internet connection is unstable). The upload should have been stopped by the system with an error notification shown. This is a known issue with the MediaWiki unfortunately... -FASTILY 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Massimo Troisi (Neu).jpg

Hello! It's the new file was made from other old file. But old file was deleted. Please, kill this new file too. Thank You. Best regards. -- Baden-Paul (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! Hope that helps, FASTILY 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion request for "Mario_Crocco.jpg"

Dear Fastily, thank you for the intervention. As I have just explained to Jim, 1) The source is the Journal Electroneurobiology (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/ ). It is a State e-journal licensing its material under creative commons (see below in the Index page). 2) The image is in http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/general_archivos/mario_crocco_explicando2.JPG and is unrelated to PD-NASA 3) Also, it has nothing to do with Beanie Baby (and I have no idea of what is this reference) 4) I think we were talking about different images. No copyright violation is possible in the circumstances, so let´s me place again the same request. As I also said Jim, I´m quite unexperienced, so let me ask for help. Cheers,

Hi, Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mislinked

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#https:.2F.2Fcommons.wikimedia.org.2Fwiki.2FFile:2008_Krystal_Meyers_20_years_old_at_radio_interview.png

Actual file is File:2008 Krystal Meyers 20 years old at radio interview.png (not deleted) apparently because of the external link (I guess). Revent (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right! Link fixed and file deleted. Thanks for letting me know -FASTILY 04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually edit conflicted with you in attempt to fix the link as you were closing it, lol. Revent (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Weathercote Waterfall.jpg

I see that you have deleted this image. I did send the email correspondence which I originally had between the owner of the image and myself to OTRS [email protected] as requested. Was the image deleted as a result of that correspondence? --Langcliffe (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Potentially. The file was flagged for deletion as missing evidence of permission for more than 7 days. If the email was processed, an OTRS member would have removed the file from the deletion queue. Please consider emailing OTRS again to ask about the status of the file -FASTILY 01:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted page File:JC-512Transparent.png

emailed consent. Thank you. (0; JChandanais (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-03#File:Sandnes_City_Map.png

You marked "done"; but the file is not restored? Jee 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is now! Thanks for letting me know -FASTILY 07:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I added the permission. :) Jee 07:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

I emailed an organization asking if they would be able to donate a couple of images to Commons, and they replied sure with them attached. Is this sufficient enough to move onto Commons? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please forward that correspondence to COM:OTRS and await for a response before taking any action. Regards, FASTILY 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I sent the FW'd email twice and both times I got a "mail delivery failed" bounce back email. Do you know why that is? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The address is [email protected]. Check to make sure you're emailing the correct address. -FASTILY 07:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the problem it seems is that the photos in question cannot be attached to the email. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RorySutherlandAdvertising.jpg

You deleted this file but it is listed as free to use and share on Google and also on the users Flickr account - please can you restore (RedJulianG40 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

No file has ever existed at File:RorySutherlandAdvertising.jpg. Are you sure this is the correct title -FASTILY 08:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[20]

Mind just deleting this redirect for me? It appears more than one yachting group uses this burgee. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 08:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Steve Harrison advertising

You deleted a picture of Steve Harrison from Commons and therefore from his Wikipedia page - this picture is owned by me and I took it... why have you deleted it? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Two Chairmen

You deleted two pictures from the Two Chairmen Wikipedia page, these pictures are owned by me, why have you done this? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:File:AliPahlavanPortrait.JPG

Hi, I already provided explanations in the discussion section of this file. First of all the file is not copyrighted, but

as a courtesy I added the photographer name to the license header section. Also, the artist ([Ali Pahlavan])

himself asked me to put that photo in there, and as you see he has a link to the wiki page on his official website (http://www.alipahlavan.com/about)

and the same image is there too. please let me know why it was deleted and if the explanation is satisfactory please undelete it. Thanks, Shahab.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

-Thanks. Shahab78

File:Concord Production Logo.svg

Hi, I would notify to you that after Motopark asked for permission, I gave the explanation (the file does not need any permission, since is a derivative of a PD logo) either to him and in the file description (1, 2). I did not received any answer from Motopark, but an evasive one. Please, would you tell me why Yin-Yang simbol needs permissions? Otherwise, explain me why this copyright rejection (with two appeals also rejected) does not apply to this file. The copyright refusal is clear: "adding words, titles, symbols, ... layout, format, or mere change of size or coloring ... does not entitle to claim copyright". I know, it is a quite long (boring) document, I read it all before making the derivative logo, you can find the same rule applied to the original drawing, but please read it. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This could be interpreted as a borderline case - I'll send the file to DR -FASTILY 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Anyway, my humble opinion is that it is not a borderline case, but, on the contrary, a rare clear one. It is a reduced derivative work from a more complex one, that is PD by a judgment and (poor Bruce Lee) three times rejected the concerning copyright protection. I'd like to have many more examples like this, you know how complex is the international copyright rules! At least, OTRS permission is inappropriate. :) -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 20:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Autobahnüberführung Katharinenplatz Frankfurt.jpg

Könntest du bitte das Bild "Autobahnüberführung Katharinenplatz Frankfurt.jpg" wieder auf Commons in die Kategorie "MAN-Werk Gustavsburg" einbinden? Danke --Nixnubix (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Could you please remain the picture "Autobahnüberführung Katharinenplatz Frankfurt.jpg" at Commons in the Category "MAN-Werk Gustavsburg"? Thank you --Nixnubix (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? -FASTILY 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it has a permission {{OTRS|1.3.2015|2015030110008368|Martin K. (Diskussion)}} See "File:Autobahnüberführung Katharinenplatz Frankfurt.jpg" at WP --Nixnubix (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Only OTRS members can apply this tag. Are you an OTRS member? -FASTILY 04:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not an OTRS member. Just undelete the picture in the Category:MAN-Werk Gustavsburg. It has a valid permission --Nixnubix (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Only an OTRS member can request the undeletion (or undelete the file themselves) of a file when a ticket is marked as approved in the OTRS database. Please be patient, as OTRS will get around to restoring your file shortly. -FASTILY 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mariupol collage.png

Good day, I'm Azerbaydzhan-e-Dzhanubi. I made file "Mariupol collage.png".

Why you deleted this file? I showed all sources.

Sorry, I don't know English. -- Азербайджан-е-Джануби (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mariupol-airport.jpg seems to be missing clear evidence of permission (possible copyvio) -FASTILY 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- Азербайджан-е-Джануби (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Positive_Nut_Cover_for_Kindle.jpg.pdf

Closed; but files not restored? :) Jee 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I found one. Jee 07:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry that's twice in one week! I need to stop closing one half, get distracted, go afk, and then come back later to finish. I'll just end up forgetting ._. -FASTILY 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries; thanks. :) Jee 01:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The strawberry fruit (which is not actually a berry) is widely appreciated for its characteristic aroma, bright red color, juicy texture, and sweetness. Thanks for working at COM:UDEL. Higly appricated. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :D -FASTILY 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

LISA HELLER

Can you please URGENTLY restore these pictures on the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Heller and also on Commons?

_DSC0523.jpg Background for website.jpg Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 9.05.45 PM.png

These are my pictures I completely own them and I would like them to be restored right away. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.196.168 (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

LISA HELLER

Can you please URGENTLY restore these pictures on the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Heller and also on Commons?

_DSC0523.jpg Background for website.jpg Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 9.05.45 PM.png

These are my pictures I completely own them and I would like them to be restored right away. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.196.168 (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Shuttle Enterprise photo label is partly incorrect

Hi!

Lovely shot of the shuttle Enterprise at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Trek_cast_and_Space_Shuttle_Enterprise.jpg

However... the man between Roddenberry and Koenig is listed as George Low, and it is definitely NOT George Low. In fact, the person to the RIGHT of Mr. Koenig, with his face turned to the right, is most likely George Low. (I met with Mr. Low several times when he was the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the late 70's). My guess as to the identify of the unknown person: Al Gore!

Not a complaint, but I didn't want to talk into the site and just edit it myself w/o communicating with you first.

See (for example) George's picture at http://www.rpi.edu/dept/NewsComm/Campus_News/sept_02/sept_23/low.html

Please feel free! The file was originally uploaded to Wikipedia by RadioFan. I just transferred the file to Commons. Best, FASTILY 07:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Haydeh Changizian Photo

Hello. We have e-mailed Wiki the written permission from Ms. Haydeh Changizian to upload her photo on stage on 1970s. Why you have deleted the file? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Haydeh_Changizian_(L),_Prima_Ballerina_of_Persian_Ballet,_with_Jamshid_Saghabashi,_Roudaki_Hall,_Tehran,_mid-1970s.png&action=edit&redlink=1

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 07:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sun in X-Ray

Speedy-deleted by you.[21] Notice to uploader. File was uploaded in 2006, was in substantial use and there are derivatives. From [22], this was uploaded in 2006, license would have been, PD-USGov-NASA, but there is a possible error there, the image came from a Japanese satellite, Yohkoh. This kind of deletion should be discussed or explained, this was not an "own work" claim, it was a PD claim. I assume that we will upload the file to Wikiversity for Fair Use, and the same can be done for en.wiki. But it is superior if PD can be found and the file hosted here. Thanks for your attention. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is public domain, as I found when researching license for upload to Wikiversity. Please undelete. See [23] (that is the data policy of the Yokoh data archive), and then this announcement, "All YDAC users are allowed full access to any Yohkoh data more than twelve months old; this data is in the public domain. (my emphasis). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The cited concern was "While NASA (and other space agencies/universities) contributed to Yohkoh, this was a mission by Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (the predecessor of JAXA), and thus its works would automatically be copyrighted. There is no evidence this image was produced by NASA, nor is there any evidence of the image being released from non-free copyright.". I don't think there's sufficient evidence to restore this outright, but I wouldn't be unopposed to sending this to DR -FASTILY 07:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do, or simply reverse the decision, since I think you missed the point. It was correct that the image was not produced by NASA, and, in fact, rights were originally reserved. However, the Japanese project released the data into the public domain, long ago, as I showed, I linked to the project policy announcement, which only reserved rights for a year. --Abd (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done -FASTILY 08:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi Fastily, your ArchiveBot always changes the order of the template's parameters (archive, minthreadstoarchive, algo) back and forth. For example: [24], [25], [26], [27]. No big deal, but not nice either. Maybe the bot is able to keep one order. Thanks --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the code, so I have no idea why that might be. I might be able to fix this by updating my copy of pywikipediabot, which I know for fact is somewhat dated. -FASTILY 08:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Another non-free image.

Hi Fastily, how are you?

There's another non-free image here. This simple search is the proof we need.

Can you remove it please?

Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

YouTube Upload Tool

Any news on the YouTube Upload Tool which you proposed in June last year? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not much unfortunately. I've been too busy with RL as of late, so I haven't been able to spend much time on Wikimedia related things. It's still on my todo list though -FASTILY 20:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Hans Hüttig (1894 - 1980) - SS-kampcommandant - Vught.jpg

Dear Fastily, You deleted an image of Hans Hüttig (File:Hans Hüttig (1894 - 1980) - SS-kampcommandant - Vught.jpg) and gave this reason: "No source since 6 March 2015". There was a source indicated however by the uploader, which I even specified after 6 March. The photographer is and will remain unknown. This photograph looks to me a very clear case of anonymous-EU & PD-old-70. Could you undelete? Vysotsky (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Tamizha image

So you're telling me that File:Tamizha-album-pressmeet.jpg was deleted not because of my actions (i.e. I uploaded a tinted version of it), but that of the uploaders, the fact that he claimed another site's work to be his own? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes -FASTILY 19:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-03#MadriCR_II

I added permission to most of the files other tan a few corrupted uploads. But I noticed that a few files shows interior of buildings whereas there is no FOP in Costa Rica. Hope it is not an issue as the permission is from Director of Communications of the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica on behalf of Government of the Republic of Costa Rica. Jee 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sándor szabolcs.jpg

Hi! Please restore this image. The premission has been sent to permissions-hu, the ticket ID is 2015030710009641 and it’s published under CC BY-SA 3.0. Thanks, --Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that! OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 19:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It’s already processed on huwiki, I know the ticket ID from there (@Pallerti did the process, you can ask them if you want to be sure). --Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The original uploader re-uploaded it as File:Sándor Szabolcs.jpg, so we don’t need more the restore. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anne_Curzan_-_Anatol_Rodgers_Lecture.jpg

Hi Fastily - Let me know please why you deleted the file. I used the upload wizard and provided all the required information. I did not get a notice that it was flagged for deletion. So I don't know what I did wrong. - Thanks LeoRomero (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you personally take this photograph? If not, then do you have permission from the person who did to publish the file under a Commons-compatible license (if so, email COM:OTRS to get the file restored)? -FASTILY 05:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jacob Anton Schorer (1866 - 1957) - portrait - LGBT emancipator - founder Nederlandsch Wetenschappelijk Humanitair Komitee.jpg

Dear Fastily, You deleted this portrait of a Dutch LGBT-pioneer because i could not find the photographer. I researched sources at the expert institute w:IHLIA LGBT Heritage and asked curators there, but they could not help me with further information about the author. Chances that we``ll find the author seem remote. As Schorer was born in 1866, this photograph seems around 100 years old, so {{PD-EU-anonymous}} or {{PD-Art-80}} etc. seemed appropriate to me. Could you please reconsider und undelete? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot find an author does not mean that the author is not known. I'll list the file at DR and let's get some community input on this. -FASTILY 05:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If Hansmuller were the person not being able to find the author, I'd support your statement. However, it's not him but curators of expert institutions. For me, that's a sound argument to support an 'anonymous' statement. I've left my opinion in the DR. Best regards and thanks to Hansmuller for researching the issue and to Fastily to restore the file. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 09:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File restoration required

Hi Fastily, I am Ethically Yours and am one of the members of the OTRS team. I have evaluated the OTRS email from the author, and request you to kindly restore the original image: File:Gijs van Winkelhof.JPG, which had been deleted by you as it had not been confirmed by OTRS personnel. Thanks. Ethically Yours (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional request on same parameter for File:Phil Packer - BRIT Profile.jpg. Ethically Yours (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 05:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Thank you.! Appreciate it. Ethically Yours (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

unDR

Would you mind granting my unDR request? It has been ignored and so far there is no opposition. The image uses basic geometry and was drawn by the uploader, it should never have been deleted without a proper discussion. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, done! -FASTILY 05:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Daniel Montenegro.jpg

Can you tell me why did you deleted the file? It's a CAPTION from Public TV in Argentina, which I personally made with my computer. It's PUBLIC!!! A public image edited by myself. So, I don't understand the deal with it. Did somebody called blaming about it? I don`t think so, because it's public. Can it be restored? Or at least, can somebody explain it to me without any of those standard messages, man to man? Adannoes (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

But Public TV in Argentina is free content! Adannoes (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And so are most things on the internet. That, however, does not mean that they are copyright free. -FASTILY 07:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

About File:Logo église orthodoxe.jpg

Hello,

Last night, around midnight, I uploaded a file whose content is a logo and size is 106x108px (4.69kb). I put it on a page on fr:WP (Église de la Dormition-de-la-Mère-de-Dieu de Marseille). Today, I receive a notification of copyvio, suggesting me to explain it on discussion page of the file. But, though its name remain blue, the file (and its discussion page of course) had disappeared from commons, and even its link had been erased from the page in fr:WP (at 6:42 am). Total blackout!

I note that fr:WP allows logos to be used without licence, provinding their origin is indicated (see Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur on fr:WP). So it appears that I could have discussed the deletion request if it were not so expeditive.

Are you sure that the case was so clear, and answer so urgent? Of course I will survive, but the way seems to me slightly negligent.

Sincerly, Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

FR wp is not Commons. Commons is a free image repository, and from what I can see this is a non-free logo -FASTILY 04:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Taifas map

Hi Fastily, I noticed that you have deleted File:Taifas.gif with reason "No source since 11 March 2015". I didn't knew the file nor it's history, but I have found that File:Taifas-ca.png links to it and that file has an upload date at 2011. Could you review if Taifas.gif is derivated from Taifas-ca.png? If Taifas-ca.png is derived from Taifas.gif, then Taifas-ca should be deleted too.... Now I have found that File:Iberiska halvön 1031.GIF stats that is derived from Taifas.gif, and Iberiska halvön 1031.GIF is dated in 2007... Could you review if with that information the file Taifas.gif could be restored? Sorry for my english and thanks in advance! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be the same image (the deleted file, for reference: [28], [29]). I did notice a discrepancy however: the uploader of File:Taifas-ca.png and File:Taifas.gif both seem to be claiming the file as own work. Well that obviously can't be true, because someone is clearly copying someone else here. -FASTILY 04:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sir Michu.jpg

Could you undelete this file: File:Sir Michu.jpg ? The proper OTRS agreement has just arrived [30]. Polimerek (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 04:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Polimerek (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification

I have not been notified about the deletion of File:Aurel Barglazan bust.jpg. And "No FOP in Romania" do not applies indoor. --Turbojet (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes you were and yes it does -FASTILY 06:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion

Dear Fastily,

You recently deleted 3 images (photos) we uploaded.

One of these "alw-portrait-2014.jpg" is a portrait of the President of our society (Association for Computing Machinery) which we commissioned. What is the copyright we should select when uploading this photo?

Another is "Alw-fse-2014.jpg", we forwarded permissions to use this photo to OTRS at '[email protected]'.

Could you please undelete these photos or inform us of any additional steps we need to take at your earliest convenience.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Bruce Shriver,

Senior Marketing Manager Association for Computing Machinery

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 06:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cats for deletion

If you wouldn't mind, I just have a category that could be nuked.

• Category:Flags of the Chatham Islands

Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 20:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

File:FOREO logo.svg

Hi Fastily- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FOREO_logo.svg was removed, I now have the license information. How to proceed? Thank you.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/154460163

Hi Fastily. I thought that there was the agreement that you do not get involved (as an admin) anymore in cases concerning Fry. Note that I do not have an opinion concerning the current case.
In addition, why did you substitute the templates? --Leyo 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There has neither been a formal agreement on my part, nor has there been an enactment of a community ban prohibiting me from closing topics pertaining to Fry. Also, I think my closing statement is both clear and impartial: "The next person who raises this subject again will find themselves blocked for disruption", and yes that means if Fry reopens the subject, I will block him too. Templates substituted because this matter is closed and should not be reopened. -FASTILY 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

If you don't mind :)

• File:Royal Standard of Belgium (1909–1934).svg
• File:Royal Standard of Belgium (1934–1951).svg
• File:Royal Standard of Belgium (1951–1993).svg
• File:Royal Standard of Belgium (1993–2013).svg
• File:Royal Standard of Belgium.svg
• File:Royal Standard of the Queen Consort of the Belgians (1960–1993).svg
• File:Royal Standard of the Queen Consort of the Belgians (1993–2013).svg
• File:Royal Standard of the Queen Consort of the Belgians.svg

Thanks my friend. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jr_mapuku.jpg

Hello! I have earlier (within the due deadline - on March 10th) sent an email confirming that the author of Jr_mapuku.jpg and veselin_penev.jpg is OK with publishing them to commonmedia. However the files were deleted. What can be done to undelete them?

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks but I don't get it why would you delete the files before you check your email for confirmations? Cheers :)

The admin team is not the same as the OTRS team. There are individuals who may be members of both, but the roles are for the most part, separate. -FASTILY 05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Images for several Medal of Honor recipients

Greetings Fastily, I noticed that the images for several Medal of Honor recipients were just deleted by you today because there was no source since February 2015. One example is Oliver Duff Greene‎. Several of these were clearly in military uniforms and date from the American Civil War. How would these not meet open source requirements being that old? Does the source really matter? Clearly they were taken in a government capacity. Reguyla (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That depends. Could you link the file(s) in question? -FASTILY 17:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, there were several, but here are a couple File:Oliver Davis Greene.jpg, File:Thomas Worcester Hyde.jpg. Reguyla (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The source on both images is stated to be "www.generalsandbrevets.com". For images like these, I would say that source does matter, because there should be some way to verify the uploader's claim. -FASTILY 05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong deletion of OficialesMontenegrinosDeGala--balkansfromwithi00wyonuoft.jpg

Hello, it seems OficialesMontenegrinosDeGala--balkansfromwithi00wyonuoft.jpg has been deleted by mistake. The file was incorrectly renamed and needs to be restored to its old name. Please undo the deletion. Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the residual redirect to make way for a revert if needed. -FASTILY 07:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my mistake, I thought the old name name had been deleted for good. Thank you and sorry to bother.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I am spanish, I don´t speak english. Sorry.

I will try to explain the situation.

I m user of wikipedia in spanish, I colaborate with wikipedia in mantenance job.

I write you because one article needed a photo. I went to the place and I took a photo of a river. I came to wiki commons to put the photo in wikipedia. As colaborator I thought that I needed create muy user page. This is the reason why I put some words about me in my page of user, like in wikipedia (you can see in user: vilagarciana in wikipedia).

You want to delete my profile? Ok. Don´t worry.

But, I don´t understand why the photo of the river was deleted.

You can see: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%ADo_del_Con

This place need the photo.

Please, if I made something wrong, tell me what I do wrong, I want to learn. I want to understand what happened (I read your FAQ, but sorry, I don't understood, I know, my english level is bad, sorry)

Thanks.

I wait your answer. I don´t know where I can read your answer. Please, put a notification in my user page.

Signed: Vilagarciana in Wikipedia Spain. Here I don´t have nick ( I think), because you deleted me.

--Vilagarciana (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the page. After a second review, it wasn't what it appeared to be. Apologies for the inconvenience. Regards, FASTILY 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Fastily.

I am very happy now.

Best regards.

--Vilagarciana (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Paintings of Sophie Schneider

Would you please restore the Sophie Schneider (1866-1942). She died more than 70 years ago. So all her artistic work is in public domain now.

• File:Sopie Schneider Bilder Drei Marien.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Zwei Mädchen.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Zeitungsleser.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Winter.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider typisches Waldbild.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Jagsttal.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider ihre Mutter.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider ihr Vater.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Hertensteiner Mühle.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider französische Kriegsgefange ca 1916.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Brüchlingen.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider Aehrenleserinnen.jpg
• File:Sophie Schneider 4.jpg
• File:Sophier Schneider 3.jpg
• File:Sopie Schneider Bilder 2.jpg

If a licence template was missing, it's {{Template:PD-old-70}}. --Ephraim33 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please restore. The original uploader (a family member of Sophie) is a new user and has maybe difficulties with english language.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done per request on [31]. Fastily's deletion was also proper, and routine, because there was no response to a deletion tag based on missing license information, within the required time, and the uploader had been notified. If there are any remaining problems, I'm sure Fastily will assist. As to "too fast," Fastily didn't have time to respond to the inquiry here. Hopefully, all's well that ends well, and images are not lost if deleted, merely hidden. --Abd (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. I closed that AN/U request as "done" as to the substance, i.e, the files. My close was reverted by Andy Dingley, who apparently wants to use it as a club to beat you. There is no danger to you, only to him, my opinion. Good luck, and thanks for all your work. --Abd (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sándor Szabolcs.jpg

Please restore this file. It had permission, Pallerti put the OTRS tag on it (after it was removed by somebody), who is an OTRS member, and has access to the ticket. I don’t know how and why deleted you it. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the page was vandalized to the point where it appeared the file was still missing evidence of permission. I've restored the last clean version. Hope that helps, FASTILY 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it’s OK. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Help is needed

Many of this user's recent uploads at Special:ListFiles/Digitaleffie seemed to be without a source or proper license. Digitaleffie claims to be an employee of the Smithsonian and the images are all of a higher resolution than available from web sources. Could you please have a look at this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If you need proof of my work, see this. I uploaded these images for an edit-a-thon scheduled tomorrow. --Digitaleffie (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Digitaleffie: Okay, but for images that you have uploaded which have been tagged as no-source, could you please also send an email to COM:OTRS (with any authorization emails/documents you may have) indicating that you have permission to upload these files (please provide urls to the files) to Commons under a free license? Thanks, FASTILY 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Rosário Gimo wikipedista Moçambicano.jpeg

Meu caro colega, eliminaste o meu ficheiro (imagem) que tenho usado para minha página de usuário. Aquela imagem não tem nenhum erro, pois antes tinha, porém havia a retificado e aguardava ao caro editor que havia marcado-a como que com dados incompletos para retirar a marcação, isto é depois de eu ter a retificado. Portanto, peço que restaure a imagem! Rosário Gimo Jose 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right! File restored, thanks for letting me know -FASTILY 20:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for listening and good issues. Rosário Gimo Jose 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of files with valid license for not having a license

Fastily, Two people come to me confused about why their files tagged with {{No license}} were deleted after they added licenses. See

• File:INGHIRAMI(1821) Bronzi etruschi - T 15.jpg
• File:INGHIRAMI(1821) Monumenti etruschi Tomo 2.jpg
• File:JSS pic.jpg

It seems like there is some problem with your processing pipeline and the step to verify that files still have no license, before the deletion, was skipped. --Jarekt (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I check them by hand, but I do miss a few on occasion. If I've made a mistake I'll be happy to address it as soon as I am able. Regards, FASTILY 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The 3 files I was alerted about I fixed , but I was concerned about other files like that. Now You do not need to check files for licenses by hand this CatScan3 query will list them for you. --Jarekt (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Munhava Cidade da Beira.jpeg

Ola meu caro colega, exponho te essa questão relacionada ao ficheiro em causa, fiz o uploard por uma falha, pois não é esse o ficheiro pretendido. Podias ajudar me a inverter o nome do ficheiro e a sua Descrição ao invés de elimina-lo? Rosário Gimo Jose 13:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by that? -FASTILY 20:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Judging from what Google Translate makes of the Portuguese, due to a computer problem the user accidentally uploaded the file under an incorrect name and description, and is asking for it to be fixed instead of deleted. (But I don’t see any warning tags on the above page …)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

I know you are not on the enwiki these days but would appreciate your opinion on the Joss Lynam image. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

jr_mapuku.jpg

Hello! I have earlier (within the due deadline - on March 10th) sent an email confirming that the author of Jr_mapuku.jpg and veselin_penev.jpg is OK with publishing them to commonmedia. However the files were deleted. What can be done to undelete them?

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 05:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DRs from Jcpag2012

Hi, Please check the DRs from this user before deleting files. Many are with bogus reason. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"Apparently this tag is OK"

Please, explain: why? Where is a valid license in that files? I don't see any. --A.Savin 10:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is a valid license tag -FASTILY 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is obviously NOT a license tag, because I don't see any specific license terms there. Do you see any? Maybe you mean that the images uploaded just with this dubious template (like hundreds of uploads by "Ethically Yours" are) are in PD? So, if they are PD, then for what reason? Who is the author, have they died more than 70 years ago, or is there an other reason to believe it is PD? Or are these images CC-BY(-SA), GFDL, FAL? If so, where is the corresponding permission?

From my understanding of our policy, this template is never ever a license tag and much less a valid one according to COM:Licensing. It is nothing more than some kind of warning for re-users that the files are possibly free to reuse because no one currently knows the exact copyright status. Relying on such information goes against our Precautionary principle. You can also read from Commons:Flickr_files#The_Commons_on_Flickr the following: What this means for Wikimedia Commons is unclear, and beware that some institutions (such as the Smithsonian Institute’s Right Statement) flatly contradict “No known copyright restrictions”, asserting copyright and “No commercial use”. One must thus be cautious about uploading such images to Wikimedia Commons. So, please show me any community consensus saying that we may use files from Flickr, which are from "Commons on Flickr" without having any other evidence of free licensing and without being obviously PD; otherwise you are obliged to delete them! --A.Savin 23:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, for once I actually agree with you, the template is much too vague for my liking. While I used to delete files with this template as missing license, this has upset a good number of our colleagues who firmly believe "no known copyright restrictions" is an acceptable licensing status for Commons. I'm honestly glad to see that someone else agrees with me, so perhaps another community discussion is in order. I've nominated the template for deletion here. Regards, FASTILY 04:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 10:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian embassy picture

Hi Fastily ! How are you ? I see of you have delete my photo of Australian Embassy in France (page). This picture is mine. I take it when I visited Paris and the Eiffel tower. My car was parked just right beside the embassy. I'm not a thief and I try to illustrate lots of articles with my pictures. I put all of my photos in the public domain. Look my others pictures of embasy ==> one, two and three. Have a nice day and please, restore my picture. Supporterhéninois (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunately there is no FOP in France so I'm afraid this image is not eligible for hosting on Commons -FASTILY 22:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

jr_mapuku.jpg

Hey I am really sorry to bother you again but I don't know whom else I can address this to. Could you please specify what more can be done to prove that pictures jr_mapuku.jpg and veselin_penev.jpg deleted by you are legit to be uploaded in wikicommons so that they are finally restored. I have sent my email to [email protected] on 10th March 2015 and have no reply since. Thanks

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. You're also welcome to send another email and/or post at the OTRS noticeboard inquiring about the status of the ticket -FASTILY 04:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive deletion ?

Hello Fastily, Yesterday, I requested the speedy deletion of some of the images uploaded by the user Geddara because there was a copyright violation. Some pictures were also copright violations and I planned to request their deletion. You decided to delete all the pictures he uploaded. Reason : Out of scope. Why ? Pictures of streets and public parks in an Algerian city are out of scope ? Please undelete these pictures unless you had a reason to delete them. Here is a list of pictures which are copyright violations and should not be undeleted :

• File:Moi , ahmed okka et bendouina au cafe de kamel à chabat el leham ( laferriere ).JPG
• File:Graba apres 1962 chabat el leham ( laferriere ).jpg
• File:Ouverture de la mairie N2 apres 1962 chabat el leham ( laferriere ).jpg
• File:Graba en 1962 chabat el leham ex laferriere2.jpg
• File:Les belles villas.jpg
• File:Drapeau ALGERIEN.jpg
• File:Monument de agriculture de chabat el leham ( laferriere ).jpeg

Regards, Nemesis III ^(discuter) 14:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

I'll review when I have a moment -FASTILY 04:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

UnDR Archiving

On https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&action=history

at 2:27 on 2 April the ArchiveBot comments

"(Archiving 16 thread(s) to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-04)"

but

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-04

is empty and its history shows no activity.

It looks like the ArchiveBot has become a black hole -- or am I missing something?

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim! Unfortunately tech-ops has been doing *a lot* of maintenance/upgrades on the labs cluster for the past few days and it has been causing bots to behave erratically, not to mention breaking people's tools left and right. I'll manually fix the archive in the meantime. -FASTILY 19:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost fixed the archive myself, but I thought it better to leave it for you to see. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Conserverie Belle-Île-en-Mer.jpg

Je vous prierai de restaurer dans les plus brefs délais ce fichier. Je l'ai pris moi-même, et ce avec des produits que j'avais achetés à la conserverie parisienne de cette entreprise. Il m'est impossible de continuer à contribuer à ce projet dans de telles conditions. Voyez, pour exemple, l'article de la wikipédia francophone qui contient maintenant un lien de fichier brisé par unique raison de votre coup-de-tête ! Je vous prierai à l'avenir de vous renseigner sur l'origine d'une photo au lieu de la supprimer à tors et à travers ; c'est aussi une question de politesse envers son auteur... --CRH (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

CRH, the file was deleted because it is a derivative work of the art on the labels of the products shown. It cannot be kept on Commons without a license from their manufacturer. This deletion was entirely correct.

Considering your own very limited experience on Commons (44 edits), calling one of our most productive Administrators a knuckle-head is neither helpful nor smart. While we all are knuckle-heads from time to time, this is not one of those times. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Alors dans ce cas, ce projet s'étendra bientôt... Veuillez supprimer, je vous en prie, le File:Melker Altar - Dornenkrönung.JPG. Pourquoi ? Possible violation de copyright, je pense ainsi.

C'est ainsi que vous réagissez ? Mais, j'ai volontiers envie de répondre " parfait ". Vous supprimez tous les fichiers dans le doute ? "Parfait ". Vous n'aurez bientôt plus aucune image dans votre médiathèque.

Désormais, j'utiliserai uniquement les téléverser de wikis internes, où il y a des administrateurs encore plus

profuctifs

que vous, et une politique du moins raisonnable.

Je vous prierai d'ajouter à votre honorable décompte les près de 4000 éditions que j'ai effectuées dans les autres wikis. Si votre manière de juger des gens part de ce principe, il va falloir le réviser pour mon néfaste cas.

Je ne reviendrai pas sur ce que j'ai dit. C'est déplorable, et j'en suis navré. CRH (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cat for deletion

Mind deleting Category:Roundels of the Trinidad and Tobago for me? I made a new category with the proper name. Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This these too please, Category:Roundels of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea & Category:Roundels of the DR Congo & Category:Roundels of the Congo. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 19:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

reply

I regret not seeing your reply, back in March.

You wrote:

Uh. You are aware that *you* yourself requested deletion of the file with the rationale "Untrustworthy flickr account, as per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian police beat a bound captive.jpg"...?

No, as a busy person, I do not remember deletion requests I made in 2009. For non-administrators, like me, to have been aware that there was some kind of discussion of the deletion of this image, the deleting administrator would have had to put something like, "possible copyvio as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian police beat a bound captive.jpg" in the deletion log. Geo Swan (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Asia-Pasific Rim

Dear 尊敬的User:Fastily: nin hao! Thank you for your attention! I send by e-mail [email protected] and [email protected] requested letter global OTRS for my book (send 3 April 2015 at 23:51). Please chek and help me for Asia-Pasific Rim files: GlobalWorld_FIC_Trade_Low_L.jpg, Australia_and_Oceania_Rus.jpg and other.

And also (OTRS pending):

• File:Papua VA Helicopters Contrast.jpg
• File:Map Airlines PapuaNG.jpg
• File:NewMapL.jpg
• File:120 World Language.jpg
• File:Oceania С.jpg
• File:Australia and Oceania Rus.jpg
• File:GlobalWorld FIC Trade Low L.jpg
• File:Australia and Oceania Polynesia.jpg
• File:Australia and Oceania Melanesia.jpg
• File:Australia and Oceania Micronesia.jpg
• File:Asia-Pacific Rim MAI MSU.jpg

Xiexie! 顺致敬意， Niklitov (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you for doing that! OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent. Regards, FASTILY 07:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Demande de rétablissement d'un fichier supprimé.

Bonjour,

Vous avez supprimé ce fichier : File:Le marteau du président de la goguette de la Lice chansonnière.png

Quand vous avez proposé cette suppression je n'ai pas réagi, car j'étais absent de chez moi pour une semaine de vacances.

Ce fichier a été extrait de cette page Internet : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5763944j/f4.image.r.langFR

Il date de 1932 et cette image est donc tombée dans le domaine public.

Pourriez-vous la rétablir ? Merci beaucoup !

Cordialement.

--Basili (discuter) 10:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to re-upload the file, but please include a license tag on the file description page -FASTILY 07:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

N1 rocket photo

I'm curious why this photo: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2_N1_on_pad.jpg) was deleted. No reasoning was given, it seems to have just been summarily deleted without any discussion. It is a NASA photo, per this link: https://archive.org/details/GPN-2002-000188. That link provides detailed source information, detailing the NASA publication it was published in: "Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974". It was part of NASA's History Series publications, which were commissioned by NASA and are available without restrictions in PDF format. The publication with the image in question is here: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4408pt2.pdf, page 689. I see no indication that this image is anything other than public domain. It is my opinion that the image is fully compliant with Wikimedia Commons policy and it should be restored or re-uploaded. -- Tebrown89 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AFAICT there was reasoning given, just in a rather cryptic shorthand. I take Ze-dan’s posting to mean that the image is not considered public-domain in Russia. Commons requires media to be free in both the USA (where the servers are located) and the country of origin. And making copies of something freely available is not the same as releasing the rights under a free licence.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

How long does OTRS usually take?

Thanks so much for politely responding to my request for undeletion of File:Russell “Tad” Martin.jpg. How long might it take to hear back from OTRS regarding undeleting the file? It's been 17 days since I emailed them. Thank you for taking the time to help me figure this out! 1114Penelope (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It varies. OTRS, like most Wikipedia projects, are run exclusively by volunteers and badly understaffed. It can take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks for the email you sent to be processed and archived in the OTRS system; only then will the file be restored. -FASTILY 01:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS back log is currently at 30 days. This number is automatically used by the {{OTRS pending}} template as a grace period. --Dschwen (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbird logo2.jpg

Hi! You closed this undeltion request, but seems like you paid absolutely no attention to COM:NCR, which is essential in this case. We have an offical guideline which allows use of freely licensed works, in the sense of copyright, even if trademark laws prohibit some kinds of use. We've kept Firefox logo, which is made available under exactly the same provisions, among many other trademarked images. 193.40.10.178 08:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I did, and NCR is neither applicable, nor related for that matter. Sure, the logo may be claimed as licensed under MPL, but the re-use page explicitly imposes additional restrictions which are clearly not compatible with Commons' minimum licensing requirements. Also, remember that files for deletion are evaluated based on merit, and not in comparison to other files. -FASTILY 12:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly do you come up with an assumption that NCR is "neither applicable, nor related"? This logo is a trademark, as cited from mozilla.org restrictions are trademark related. May I cite NCR: ...as the images do not violate any copyright, they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement. Here it is quite clearly the same, free use under copyright provisons is allowed, though certain use may be trademark infringement. Please remember that Commons' minimum licensing requirements are copyright related and not trademark related. I don't insist that leading cases like Firefox logo case are prescriptive, but still, you are not saying that it's irrelevant, are you? 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:1512:4B27:B24F:B0C3 12:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't. Your quote only addresses the possibility of commercial usage, which is fine. It does not, however, address derivatives, which, if you bothered to read my closing statement, was the primary reason I used for declining your request... -FASTILY 12:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you are as disturbed of this case as I am, but it still doesn't make sense. Please note that my more general approach addressed your example of derivaties as well. I hope that if you take a bit more detailed look on what it says at NCR, then you see that certain commercial use is just an example of something that may involve a trademark infringement. I don't understand your interpretation at all. Both commerical use and derivates need to be allowed as far as it relates to copyright, this is clear per licensing policy. But as it relates to trademark then no commerical use is fine while no derivateves isn't? How do you come up with that? I'm sorry, but "it [just] isn't" is nothing but a claim. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:1512:4B27:B24F:B0C3 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to express this more plainly. The Mozilla terms explicitly forbid modifying the symbol. It doesn't matter to us whether they do that because it is a trademark or copyrighted or both -- our policy is that modification must be permitted. It's irrelevant that they call out trademark as the reason for the prohibition -- the prohibition exists, which is contrary to our requirements.

Commercial use is a different matter entirely. Many of our images are nominally free for commercial use, but cannot actually be used commercially in many contexts because of trademark or personality rights. Although an image of Barak Obama may be free for commercial use and I could use it in a textbook or make and sell tee shirts with it, I cannot use it in an advertisement for my product. Similarly, I can put the Ford logo in a textbook, but cannot use it to advertise anything. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By "our policy" you refer to COM:L. Per this policy commerical use also has to be permitted. Now, and again, in the light of non-copyright restrictions, how is the derivatives aspect "different matter entirely".? I think you haven't really thought this through. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:1512:4B27:B24F:B0C3 14:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To me it is as clear as their statement. By using specific licenses Mozilla waives their (copy)right to prohibit creation of derivative work. This makes the logo OK by our licensing policy. And yet, after having waived these rights under copyright laws, they can still prohibit similar kinds of uses under trademark laws, as they do. I don't know how you guys manage to overlook the meaning of NCR. It's about contrasting rights that are copyrights are rights that are not copyrights. If it says as the images do not violate any copyright, they are OK here then the image is OK because because specific rights that relate to defintion of free cultural work have been waived under copyright laws. NCR doesn't contrast specific rights like right to prohibit commercial or right to create derivative works. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:1512:4B27:B24F:B0C3 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You misread NCR. "Per this policy commerical use also has to be permitted" is not correct -- NCR explicitly describes a variety of commercial uses that cannot be done with many of our images -- they are similar to those listed in my comment above. NCR does not say that there are any allowable restrictions on DW. Mozilla explicitly forbids DW; we require DW, so we can't keep the image. Please remember that most corporations worry far more about trademark rights than copyrights -- this is both because trademark rights last forever if properly maintained, while copyrights expire and because trademark must be protected, as Thermos and Bayer (Aspirin) have both learned the hard way. One of the things that dilutes a trademark is allowing its use in modified form, hence the explicit reference to trademark in the prohibition. Nonetheless it is a prohibition which we must respect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't mix my words. Two first sentences in my last comment were: By "our policy" you refer to COM:L. Per this policy commerical use also has to be permitted. I clearly referd (linked) to licensing policy, not NCR. I would appreciate if you re-read my last comment to see what it was about. The nature of trademark rights that you describe is understandable, no disagreement on that. The problem is that for some reason you overlook the general meaning of NCR. There isn't a derivatives related example, the example is commerical use related. But the general idea is that even if certain use (commercial use, creation of derivatives or whatever sort of use) infringes with trademark, then this doesn't make the image not OK as far as there are no copyright restirctions. I'm sure that you actually know that per COM:L images mustn't be non-commercially licensed, and yet, as you describe, per COM:NCR, images are OK if non-commerical aspects rise due to trademark rights, not copyright. Then, keeping in mind the general meaning of NCR guidelines, it's the same with the right to create derivate works. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:60A0:9E33:D7D9:4916 18:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

UnDRs

While we didn't reach agreement in the January discussion of UnDR closings, I think most of us agreed that we should wait at least 24 hours before closing them. Since we are all over the world, that would give a reasonable chance for any of us who wanted to to comment. I note that you are still closing UnDRs very rapidly, less than three hours in a case today which I reopened. I, myself, and, I think, most of our colleagues would appreciate it if you would hold off on your closings.

Also, you typically say:

"Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you."

That's not really consistent with OTRS policy, which would much prefer to see the e-mail come directly from the copyright holder. As you certainly know, some of our uploaders are prepared to do and say anything to get images on Commons and it is trivial to forge a forwarded e-mail. Perhaps you could say:

"Please have the actual copyright holder (which may be you) send an email to OTRS and explain the situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you."

Regards, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well indeed, if the topic above could continue at UnDR, then at least there was more chance that the case would attract third or fourth opinion. 2001:7D0:88C2:F401:1512:4B27:B24F:B0C3 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

DR

This DR may interest you. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning: Removal of requests from admin talk page

Fastily, you are an active and productive administrator.

However, you have removed requests from your talk page without response,[32][33] and more last year. As mentioned in COM:TALK this can be seen as hostile.

You do request that personal attacks be avoided; however, administrators are expected to "have a thick skin." A user whose file has just been deleted will often be upset, and a kind word or at least civil reception can calm the user.

Last December, you had similarly removed a comment from Geo Swan, urging caution. (The comment removed.) Your removal edit summary: (rm, per point 3 of my talk page guidelines. If you ask politely, I'll probably go out of my way to help you. A patronizing (and hypocritical) tone will get you nowhere :))

"Patronizing and hypocritical tone" are projected onto wikitext. They may easily be fantasy, and could be thought about any warning or attempt to guide. The response was unrelated to the suggestion from Swan, but it showed reactivity. The last time I saw that in an administrator, it took a few months, but he was desysopped. Swan has been warning you of something very real. A warning is not a personal attack, which is what point 3 of your "talk page guidelines," the editing pop-up refers to. If it is wrong, misguided -- or "patronizing" -- it is still not a personal attack; you refer to w:WP:NPA, while the closest NPA gets to this is "insulting the user." If any criticism of action or suggestion of caution is an "insult," there you go. You will have become immune to guidance, and the ultimate result of that is predictable.

The comment from Geo Swan you removed today, for reference. Your removal And his next comment. and your removal.

You are not obligated to respond to a request on your Talk page (including this one), but you are an administrator, and someone else might see it and help the user. I urge you to carefully consider this, and if you are too busy to respond, just don't respond. Hostile and/or unhelpful response damage the project. If you respond to this situation here, creatively, which would take little effort, it ends here, and everyone benefits. Thanks, and good luck. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abd. Geo Swan has a long-running grudge against me, and I can assure you that this is not a coincidental occurrence. He's attempting to bait me as usual, but my stance has always been to ignore it. Regards, FASTILY 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Fastily. Please allow me to point out that you did not ignore it. You acted to remove it. "Long-running grudge" (i.e., entrenched dispute, dislike), in this case, obviously exists at least on your side. I suggest dropping the whole story, and rereading Swan's comments as if they were from someone else. Pretend that they might be good advice. See if you can find a way to interpret them that way. If he's really trying to harm you, he will fall flat on his face with no harm to you. And if it is too much work, just ignore it, don't fall into reaction, you can be manipulated easily if you are reactive. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

undeletion for File:Lai_Ying_Tong,_Hong_Kong_Songwriter.jpg

Hi Fastily,

I noticed that you've deleted my file (File:Lai_Ying_Tong,_Hong_Kong_Songwriter.jpg). I've asked the photo owner to sd an email to OTRS weeks ago. Will the photo be back again if it's approved (even if you've deleted it)?

Thanks! --Tvchan (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pan-European corridor VIII.svg

Hi, may I ask why you have deleted File:Pan-European corridor VIII.svg ? Maybe you didn't notice, but it's part of the system of the European corridors. Each has a map: File:Pan-European corridor I.svg, File:Pan-European corridor II.svg etc, all based on Pan-European corridors.svg Gogo303 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Pan-European corridor VIII.svg

You've moved the following into the archives without giving an answer. Could you please answer? Thanks.

Hi, may I ask why you have deleted File:Pan-European corridor VIII.svg ? Maybe you didn't notice, but it's part of the system of the European corridors. Each has a map: File:Pan-European corridor I.svg, File:Pan-European corridor II.svg etc, all based on Pan-European corridors.svg Gogo303 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Gogo303 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

An honest mistake. I, along with the user who tagged the file, did not see the source info because the Information template was malformed. This is fixed now. Regards, FASTILY 05:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Tnx. Gogo303 (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Steve Furber deletion error?

Hello you've deleted the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Furber.jpg in error I believe. Your edit says "no permission" on the image but the rights are clearly stated at https://web.archive.org/web/20130703211713/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_Furber.jpg as the owner is Peter Howkins (wikipediaID: flibble)

Yes, I took this photo and gave permission for it when uploading, this has been erroneously deleted, please restore it.--Flibble (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for clarifying that. File restored -FASTILY 05:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of File:Fauzaya Talhaoui.jpg

You removed Fauzaya Talhaoui.jpg based on no permission please explain as I cannot retrace the file and its attributions/license. AFAIK the license info was correct. --DerekvG (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Were you formally authorized by Fauzaya Talhaoui to upload her portrait? If so, please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored. If not, then the file is not eligible for hosting on Commons; see COM:L and COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was, and why did you remove WITHOUT posting any comment, RFI asking for clarification to my talk page ?--DerekvG (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. You were duly notified here four months ago -FASTILY 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Sorry to bother you, but I have some redirects that can be deleted.

• File:Philippines road sign W4-1.svg
• File:Philippines R1-2P.svg
• File:Philippines R2-1.svg
• File:Philippines R2-1P.svg
• File:Philippines R2-2 (L).svg
• File:Philippines R2-2P (L).svg
• File:Philippines R2-2 (R).svg
• File:Philippines R2-2P (R).svg
• File:Philippines R2-3 (L).svg
• File:Philippines R2-3P (L).svg
• File:Philippines R2-3 (R).svg
• File:Philippines R2-3P (R).svg
• File:Philippines R2-6.svg
• File:Philippines R2-6P.svg
• File:Philippines R2-7.svg
• File:Philippines R2-7P.svg
• File:Philippines R3-1.svg
• File:Philippines R3-1P.svg
• File:Philippines R4-1 (60).svg
• File:Philippines R4-2.svg
• File:Philippines R4-2P (60).svg
• File:Philippines R4-3 (40).svg
• File:Philippines R5-3C.svg
• File:Philippines R5-8.svg
• File:Philippines R6-7.svg
• File:Philippines R6-8.svg
• File:Philippines R6-9.svg
• File:Philippines R6-10.svg
• File:Philippines R6-11.svg
• File:Philippines S2-2.svg
• File:Philippines W6-1.svg
• File:Philippines W6-2.svg
• File:Philippines W6-4.svg
• File:Philippines HM 4A.svg
• File:Philippines HM 4B.svg
• File:Philippines R2-5 (R).svg
• File:Philippines R2-4.svg
• File:Philippines road sign W1-3 (L).svg

Thanks. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 00:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Diabase Moiseikin.jpg

Hi. You remover File:Diabase Moiseikin.jpg. Please see the application for renewal. User-provided OTRS permission (ticket:2015041510004334). --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Максим Підліснюк: Restored! -FASTILY 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. We have permission to come on the list of files you deleted (ticket:2015042810009725). Please restore:

• File:Asia-Pacific Rim MAI MSU.jpg;
• File:Australia and Oceania Melanesia.jpg;
• File:Australia and Oceania Micronesia.jpg;
• File:Australia and Oceania Polynesia.jpg;
• File:GlobalWorld FIC Trade Low L.jpg;
• File:Australia and Oceania Rus.jpg;
• File:120 World Language.jpg;
• File:NewMapL.jpg;
• File:Map Airlines PapuaNG.jpg;
• File:Papua VA Helicopters Contrast.jpg;
• File:Oceania С.jpg. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Done! -FASTILY 06:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

I noticed that File:Cynthia Rothrock 2010.jpg has been deleted. What whas the exact reason for that ? If I am not mistaken, it had been on wikipedia for five years, and it had been uploaded by its author. So why should it need a permission ? + No one is going to see a permission demand in only one week... JJ Georges (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, professional quality/press kit shots uploaded by new users with few or no other edits are almost always copyvios. It's unfortunate that the file lasted for so long. We try our best to scrutinize every file that is uploaded to Commons, but a lack of manpower means that bad images do get through -FASTILY 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I happen to KNOW that this file was not a copyvio : it was uploaded by a friend of the subject because I asked him to. :) JJ Georges (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case, could you please have your friend email COM:OTRS with a declaration of content affirming that s/he is the copyright holder and authorized to publish the file under a free license? Of course, that's not to say I don't believe you, but unfortunately word-of-mouth is insufficient evidence of permission -FASTILY 06:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not exactly a FRIEND, just someone with whom I exchanged a few messages on facebook five years ago. I CAN try, but the situation is a bit weird : IMHO, the person is just going to be annoyed. I mean, it's a pity that we have people ready to share their photos, just to have them deleted - five years later, at that - because they look "too professional" (the picture was OK but not THAT professional). It's a bit discouraging... Not to mention that most people are just mystified by the OTRS system. What should I do and which is the correct email address for the english version of commons ? JJ Georges (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please have them follow the procedure at COM:OTRS and send an email to "[email protected]". I'm sorry to hear that you don't like our declaration of consent policy. IMHO it's not the best thing in the world, but given our lack of volunteers it's the only thing that really works. -FASTILY 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the declaration of consent policy per se : on the contrary, it is very useful for pictures that have been published elsewhere. I use it regularly for some photographers who agree to share their work here. It's just that most people find it far too complicated : I know it because I have to do all the work myself for them (I just send them what they have to forward). If I asked them to follow the whole procedure themselves they'd give up immediately. Also, for pictures which have not been published anywhere, I find it kind of excessive. Maybe we should make it clear to people that MUST send an OTRS message when they upload their work, even when it hasn't been published elsewhere. I think it's a pity that a guy agrees to share a photo and then five years later it's deleted because someone has a hunch that it might be a copyvio. I'll ask, but I have no idea if I'll obtain anything. JJ Georges (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Erase ALL the shields of Chilean Teams

Hi, I see that you deleted ALL the shields of the Chilean League... but this is not all. You (or other) deleted a lot of flags of Chilean Teams that I MADE... If I make my own flags, I don't need a "license" right? NO. I don't understand, too, why you deleted the shields... What kind of license do I need? I need a explanation simple and valid. Greetings from Chile, Heffron_Drive7.

Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Image restored

Well, I managed to track down the author of this photo and secured an otrs email from him. So I guess all's well that ends well. :) Still, it shows that sometimes admins get TOO suspicious : not that I blame you for being suspicious, but still it would have been a pity. Cheers JJ Georges (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo Removal

Hi I am Frank L Ridley. I did not make my wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_L._Ridley

I own the photo the creator of the page used. I tried to correct the deletion but don't know how to do it.

Thanks, FR

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hemlock Lake Winter HDR.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hemlock Lake Winter HDR.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

A cupcake is a small cake designed to serve one person. They are often served with frosting and sprinkles on top.. Thanks for closing udel requests every day. Highly appreciated! :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -FASTILY 01:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Retired

{{Retired}}

It is a preposterous notion, retiring because I spoke the truth and defended the innocent from unbecoming behavior, but alas, here we are. If I am going to be true to myself, then I am going to walk this path because I am tired of wasting my breath opposing endless bigotry, hypocrisy, immaturity, and irrationality. I neither regret anything I have done, nor do I feel the need to apologize for anything I have done. I am just glad that I stood up and did the right thing, even when nobody else would or cared, and that makes all the difference to me.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the problem, is not with the WMF, policies/guidelines, or individual editors, but rather it is with the contagious witch-hunt mentality of the community. I know, it is easy, and even fun to single an editor out, ostracize them, seduce the masses with promises of drama, and freely harass and attack that poor soul without fear of either penalty or retribution. It is during such times (and even in general) that we have a tendency to focus on the negative and overlook the positive. Outstanding contributions are rewarded with silence, and mistakes, however minute or well-intentioned, are met hostility and contempt. The thing most people fail to understand is that there is a real person reading these insults and experiencing this reckless hatred on the receiving end. Throughout my tenure here, I have seen countless editors, from IP editors to bureaucrats, say things or insult others in ways that they would dare not have in real life.

As these WMF projects mature, truth and impartiality have never been more important as applied to community matters. It is unfortunate seeing those who care for fairness and objectivity ignored, silenced, or worse, departed. These fanciful biases, resentments, and grudges have the power to push one to poison others, distort the truth, and sacrifice everything that one once knew and cared about in a twisted crusade to exact spurious vengeance against one’s foe. And all to what benefit? Victor or loser, each party, whether they know it or not, always pays a terrible price.

I know that Wikimedians are not only capable of beautiful, amazing things, but also capable of foul, horrible things; regrettably, these last few years I have seen more foul, horrible things than beautiful, amazing things. I have often watched, silently and bitterly, as Wikimedian after Wikimedian, friend after friend, and valuable contributor after valuable contributor departed the community at an ever increasing rate, always wondering if we, as a community, would ever find our way back in that warm, supportive, collegial atmosphere that once reigned supreme. Given the present path and current state of affairs, I believe that these WMF projects are headed towards ruin through mob-mentality and infighting. The project is ill, very ill, and I fear for its future.

It has been over seven years since I started editing WMF projects, and I reckon I have contributed more than my fair share of weekends, sweat, and effort to these projects by now. Nonetheless, it has been an excellent run, and I want to personally thank each and every one of you who made it so enjoyable (you know who you are) to edit that I had to return day after day. I am certain that when I look back, I will definitely remember all the good times, as overall this has been a very positive experience. However, I do not plan on returning, and unfortunately, this is also a promise, and, as some of you probably know, I am very good at following through with commitments. So if these projects still have a shot (no matter how big or how small) at a bright future, then I trust that those of you who remain and still care to make a difference will do your very best to make said future a reality :)

Take care friends, and until we meet again,

FASTILY 03:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Farewell

• Hi Fastily, we were in opposite sides in many matters like the URAA issue. I had complained earlier against your actions in AN/U in matters you're well involved. On the other side I saw you were very helpful in handling newbies without biting, speedy response in UNDEL, etc. I believe the current case were you overturned a block by Yann is also inappropriate as you are in conflict with Yann and considered friendly to that user in question. I think the area you failed is to control yourself and keep abstain in "en:WP:INVOLVED" matters.

That said, I saw a lot of revenge votes in that RfA which should be avoided. And I don't believe losing two admins now make any solution to the current issue of Commons. Now this project is an anarchy where 240+ admins act as they wish and no higher authority to guide. We discussed this matter to the crats public and in list. An easy solution can be to setup an Arbcom where all crats, CUs and check-users included. They can interfere and make decisions when there is a conflict between admins.

Anyway, it is up-to your decision if wanted a break now. I too enjoy long and short breaks in my time here. Now also in a semi-break as not involved in anything other than uploads. Have a nice time. Jee 04:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fastily, thank you for your long dedicated work for Commons. It is sad to see you leaving. All the best, AFBorchert (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all you have done for Commons. You are a dedicated Commonist who always goes 'why not?'. I wish you all the best. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 08:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

	The Hedgehog Prize
	Estonian proverb: Something happens to he who does. Nothing happens to he who sleeps. In Estonian mythology, hedgehog is considered one of the most clever animals. Taivo (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sad to see you leave, hope that you will return soon. Green Giant (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you leave. Good luck, good cheer, and hopefully you will return some day. Ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank you for being our most decisive sysop, even if that decisiveness led to conflict between you and others. Take care. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see you leave... I hoped you would stay. Take care and see you soon hopefully. Trijnstel_talk 12:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hope to see you again someday. Evrik (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

From Yann

Hi, Despite my critics, I thank you for all the work you did, and I hope that you will consider coming back sometime in the future. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 I also was often critical of some of your actions that seemed to be more quantity than quality, but you got a lot done and for a long time kept our queues un-backlogged. I also would like to thank you for all your work and hope you come back. Best wishes --Jarekt (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fastily, You did a good job and made just one mistake which is already reverted. Please stay and go on with the project. I hope to see more contribs from You. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 20:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

GlobalReplace

Hey Fastily, sad to see you deleted your GitHub repository. So I was ultimately forced to decompile the work you have done. I just had a quick look over the files and already spotted a operating system user name which you probably would like to have hidden. In case you bother, please submit a patch or e-Mail me. It is possible to manipulate history, even in public GitHub repos. Perhaps you alternatively want to submit your original source code; I've seen you did a good job in documenting it. Best regards and take care -- Rillke^(q?) 21:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

History has been re-written. -- Rillke^(q?) 06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I still strongly encourage you to let at least other people benefit from the tests you conducted. If you now decide to trash all the code you have written, this is a little egoistic. So please publish your git repos (including full history if possible) again. -- Rillke^(q?) 07:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:US patent 6987220 Holcombe.png

Fastily,

I found this image used on Wikipedia and planned to nominate it for deletion on the grounds that post-1989 patents are not in the public domain (as indicated in Template:PD-US-patent). To my surprise, I found out that I had nominated it last year for deletion and it was kept. I see that the issue of the propriety of post-1989 patent images on Commons has been discussed (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/02#Do US patents have copyright protection?), and some of my nominations of post-1989 images have resulted in deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statite us005183225-005.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statite US005183225 Fig4.svg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Locheed Martin X-33 Corp Cryogenic Tank Joint Patent Drawing US6290086 B1.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Method of exercising a cat.png). I think reconsideration and further discussion to reach a consensus on whether post-1989 patent images are allowed on Commons is in order. Thanks, RJaguar3 (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: Fastily is no longer active on Commons, he retired back in May. COM:VPC would be a good place for such a discussion, though. Revent (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why do you think that a 3rd party statement "patents published before March 1, 1989 are in the public domain" mean that those published after this date are copyrighted and so can be deleted?

AIUI, US federal government work, including patents, is (as usual) subject to the generous US government terms. For patents, only work of the patent applicant that specifically requests copyright protection (which is generally rare) is protected as such.

Yet again, the great game of finding more stuff to delete (of which the unmissed Fastily was such a devoted player) has triumphed over useful educational purposes. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

File:(49) Metapolis.jpg

File:(49) Metapolis.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

• Concearning a file transfer from enwiki. Gunnex (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Scenic design photos by Dejan Miladinovic

An image you transferred from enwp is included in a deletion discussion, if you have a moment: Commons:Deletion requests/Scenic design photos by Dejan Miladinovic – czar 22:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

Hi Fastily, Will you please archive my talk page using ArchiveBot operated by you? Regards, Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 16:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Ray Bradbury.jpg

Hi, it seems that you deleted this file without any reason, just because it doesn't have OTRS-permission. But A LOT of pictures on Commons don't have it. Does it mean that all of them should be deleted? --Алый Король (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

File:1964-uk-kongreseto.jpg

Dear Fastily (in case you see this note though you stated your retirement from Commons), in February 2012 you deleted the file 1964-uk-kongreseto.jpg, which hadn't a licence suitable for Wikimedia Commons. It was used primarily in the Esperanto-branch of Wikipedia. As I'm an administrator in the Esperanto Wikipedia, only now got aware about the missing historical picture in the Esperanto-article and in this branch files labelled as "fair use" are accepted in some cases, could you send me the file with it's upload history, maybe by email through the link at my esperanto user page, so that I could check if it applies for local reupload in the Esperanto-branch of Wikipedia labelled as "fair use"? --ThomasPusch (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

icon-template

Hi Fastily, I noticed that some files, which you had imported from :en to Commons, such as File:T-Crystal Palace1.jpg and File:T-Inside Schiefflin Mine.jpg, contained only after the transfer the template:icon which is a redirect to copyvio. I've removed the template after checking that it was not present on the original version at :en. --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:WHAS Logo.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:WHAS Logo.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed (talk page stalker) Ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerns regarding your bot

Please see here. Natuur12 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I pinged you at your enwiki talk page. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Dr. Rafael Lopez Nussa.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Rafael Lopez Nussa.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT ([email protected]). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Dr. Rafael Lopez Nussa.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Elisfkc (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Image needs to be visible publicly to pass review. Elisfkc (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

enwiki bot request

Hi Fastily, please note: w:en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 11 has been approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Archive size

I just went looking in your archive for a message I'd left you, and in the process, I noticed that your talk page exceeds the template limits, beginning immediately after the "Concerns regarding your bot" section. Split it up or don't split it up (I don't care, and it's your talk page anyway); I just thought you might want to know if you didn't already. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks for letting me know, I was not aware of that. Regards, FASTILY 08:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Palais du Louvre 96 2012-06-29.jpg

File:Palais du Louvre 96 2012-06-29.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Tangopaso (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete

Could you delete:

• File:Venecia-1.jpg
• File:Venecia-2.jpg
• File:Venecia-3.jpg
• File:Venecia-4.jpg
• File:Venecia-5.jpg

I moved the files and now these pages are blanked. Thanks. --Badefa (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging INeverCry, who'll be able to help you. -FASTILY 02:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Fastily pinging me for deletions? That feels just a bit strange... Good to see you around though. INeverCry 02:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you --Badefa (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:StephenPless.jpeg on EnWP

Greetings Fastily. I noticed you nominated this file for deletion due to a lack of sourcing. I have the sourcing and uploaded the image to commons (as you know I am not supposed to edit on EnWP). The New image is here: File:StephenPless.jpg. I also created a category for him and updated some info on Wikidata. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Reguyla. I saw, thanks for doing that ! :) -FASTILY 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Khong Mon.jpg

Hi. Could you explain the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khong Mon.jpg? I'm afraid I don't understand what the nom's rationale was. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paul 012. I'm not sure either, but it looks like a mistake. I'm not an admin, so I can't do any restoration; I'd suggest making this same request at COM:UDR. Best, FASTILY 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

bot burp?

I'm working on clearing out the entries in:

• en:Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 25 October 2016

Most look fine, but this entry: File:ReganMizrahi2011.jpg

Appears to have been copied over to this entry:

File:ReganMizrahi2011.jpg

without a license.

Not a big deal, easy enough to add the license but I thought you'd want to know. Please let me know if I'm missing something.--Sphilbrick (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. The Template: prefix (fixed) probably threw off MTC!. I'll work on a fix for that, I appreciate you letting me know. Also - thanks for working to clear the F8 backlog; it's really thankless work, and I'm glad that there are still a few editors up to the task :) -FASTILY 00:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Paris Disneyland 1 2012-06-26.jpg

And also:

• File:Paris Disneyland 1 2012-06-27.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 1 2012-06-29.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 10 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 11 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 12 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 2 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 2 2012-06-27.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 2 2012-06-29.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 3 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 3 2012-06-27.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 3 2012-06-29.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 4 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 8 2012-06-26.jpg
• File:Paris Disneyland 9 2012-06-26.jpg

Yours sincerely, Elisfkc (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel Tower 1 2013-07-02.ogv

File:Eiffel Tower 1 2013-07-02.ogv has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

I'll have to check my program 🍺💲🚬 16:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel Tower 2 2013-07-02.ogv

File:Eiffel Tower 2 2013-07-02.ogv has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

I'll have to check my program 🍺💲🚬 16:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you

Wishing you a very happy new year! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

+1. Have a wonderful 2017! Jee 12:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy New Year to you both :) -FASTILY 21:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of a spoken Dutch Wikipedia article

Dear Fastily, in 2013 you deleted File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg because of lack of license information. Probably it is a spoken version of the Dutch Wikipedia article nl:Matthijs van Nieuwkerk. Does such a derivative work of a Wikipedia article require licensing information? If no, could the file be restored? Wikiwerner (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwerner. I'm no longer an admin here, so I can't see the file. All files uploaded to Commons do require a declaration of copyright status on the description page. -FASTILY 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Anne Bean Evaporations.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Anne Bean Evaporations.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Anthony HopeHwkns.jpg

File:Anthony HopeHwkns.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Siamese Tabby Grooming 1 2017-03-21.ogv

File:Siamese Tabby Grooming 1 2017-03-21.ogv has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Daphne Lantier 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Siamese Tabby Grooming 2 2017-03-21.ogv

File:Siamese Tabby Grooming 2 2017-03-21.ogv has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Daphne Lantier 00:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Siamese Tabby Grooming 3 2017-03-21.ogv

File:Siamese Tabby Grooming 3 2017-03-21.ogv has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Daphne Lantier 00:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your bot

Hi, I have proposed to block your bot. Jcb (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Structure of compound GKT137831.png

Don't fall back in the old pattern. I will fix this one, next one may lead to a block. Jcb (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Les collections du musée du Louvre 27 2012-06-29.jpg

File:Les collections du musée du Louvre 27 2012-06-29.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Civa (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Palace of Versailles 92 2012-06-30.jpg

File:Palace of Versailles 92 2012-06-30.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Daphne Lantier 01:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Recategorization

BTW, this is not enough.--Emily Temple (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Internationale melody

Perhaps the French copyright has expired starting this month? Ready to undelete, please?Jusjih (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jusjih. I'm no longer an admin on Commons, so I can't restore anything. Please consider making this request at COM:UD. Regards, FASTILY 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have opened a request at COM:UD.--Jusjih (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Palais du Louvre 99 2012-06-29.jpg

File:Palais du Louvre 99 2012-06-29.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Tangopaso (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, I noticed that you are flooding us again with robot like file transfers without proper after care, this time with your FSock account. Per this discussion I have blocked the account for 1 day. Please be aware that you cannot edit Commons for the duration of the block with any account. Jcb (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll be pursuing ANU action against you shortly. You're now clearly acting on a grudge, and your claims are utterly baseless. -FASTILY 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Acting on a grudge? No, it has been made very clear to you, e.g. by @Discasto: , @Natuur12: and myself that we would not longer accept you to cause so many unnecessary maintenance work for others. Making a new alternate account and waiting a few months does not change that. Jcb (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice, but there's no need to lie. It's no secret that I have been openly critical of your administrative activity and lousy attitude for quite some time (and I'm sure that both @Fæ & @Yann can vouch for that). And your response, has been to inappropriately and relentlessly hound my edits in an attempt to discredit my contributions. Enough is enough, and I think a another DRfA is long overdue. -FASTILY 23:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not actively following your edits. I found out that you continued the behaviour because Category:Images without source was flooded again with your transfers. Jcb (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, there is no need to lie. I am critical of your behavior, and you're clearly holding a grudge. You can't reasonably expect anybody to believe that you "found" 10 files I transferred out of 40K files in Images without source if you weren't stalking my edits to begin with. -FASTILY 23:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That's easy to explain. One of the places where I am (almost daily) working on this backlog is files beginning with K. As you may notice, I already handled all files beginning with K in about the past year, there is currently just one file beginning with that letter in the category. When you did your transfer batch 18 November 01:15-01:20, 4 new files with K landed in the category, which I noticed immediately when I started working on the category. They appeared right in top of the page. Jcb (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "I have been caught in an autoblock (#316361) after Jcb inappropriately blocked my alternate account. Please unblock me so I can pursue ANU action against Jcb. Thanks, FASTILY 22:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Procedural decline, without comment on the merits. The autoblock has expired. Guanaco (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

In this discussion it became very clear that the community was no longer tolerating your careless transfers. At the moment it became clear that you would be blocked if you would continue the behaviour, you abandoned your FastilyClone account, soon to be replaced by your new FSock account. Starting a new alternate account does not allow you to continue disapproved behaviour. You have caused a lot of unnecessary maintenance work and you have been unwilling to fix your modus operandi. Enough is enough. Jcb (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support Unblock for the rationale given, noting that Fastily is not blocked under the block notification given, and so should not be prevented from creating a request.

@Fastily: at a procedural level, your main account should not be blocked. Let me know if you are blocked from editing and would like me to raise this at COM:AN for opinions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - I personally don't understand why Fastily main account was blocked. If you notice any problem with a bot account, open a discussion with the bot operator and if this does not revolve the issue, just block the bot account and not the operator's account. BTW... I am not comfortable with the unblock rationale. If the reason why you are requesting to be unblocked is to fill a Desysop request against the blocking admin, then I'll consider your unlock rationale invalid. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wikicology: If you follow this link as provided in my message at the top of this page, you will see that this is a behavioural issue rather than a bot malfunction. The problem is not the bot transfer itself, but the refusal of doing necessary aftercare. By the way, any unblock request is now moot, since the block has already expired about 15 hours ago. Jcb (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

LOC

File:John Haskell King.jpg - could you undel this one, per File:John Haskell King, 1818-1888 LCCN2002712786.tif. The jpeg would have reuploaded, apart from my script finding a matching SHA1 value. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fae. I'm no longer a Commons admin, but I'm sure someone will do it if you ask at COM:UD. Regards, FASTILY 23:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Two Raspberry Pi cases

Hey, are you really the author of both files (sorry, I don't remember)? Are you sure that both, presently used in category, need to be removed now?

• File:Raspberry Pi 3 case 1 2017-02-14.jpg
• File:Raspberry Pi 3 case 2 2017-02-14.jpg

Now, we haven't too much cases in this category. --Jasc PL (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jasc PL. I did not nominate the files for deletion, that was the result of vandalism which has since been reverted. Regards, FASTILY 07:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Fastily, now all is clear. Solved. Greetings, --Jasc PL (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi I am interested in using your dyson supersonic photos for a review. This is my first review and was wonderring if I can use your images. I am building a new website so i am fresh at this. Do I have your permission if i credit your work at the bottom of picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camrinsdad (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

Hi Camrinsdad. Yes, please feel free. Those files are licensed under the cc-by-sa-4.0. Regards, FASTILY 21:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:NYC Subway LED vc.ogv

Yours sincerely, - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

US copyright expiry

Hi, do you know anything about US copyright expiry? There is a discussion going on at en-WP here and I know RAN has uploaded a lot of stuff here with the rationale that copyright has not been renewed but, it seems, has not actually done any due diligence regarding that claim. Instead, he has made a presumption.

Is the IP correct in that discussion? Can it be pinned down in many cases?

I don't mind where you reply - here, my talk page on en-WP, the discussion itself - and I realise that you may not know the answer. I find a lot of this copyright stuff far too arcane for my brain. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sitush. Could you could link the file(s) in question? It's hard to tell what's going on without any context. You might also be interested in Commons:Hirtle chart, which lists some common scenarios. Regards, FASTILY 07:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Location?

Hi Fastily - could you add photo locations to File:Crows 15 2012-07-04.jpg and File:Crows 9 2012-07-04.jpg, please? Knowing where they were taken makes subspecies identification possible. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi MPF. I unfortunately do not remember the location I took the photo. Sorry, FASTILY 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Caltrain images

You seem to have some technical issue with these uploads - the EXIF says they were taken in August, but the date field in the information template shows the time of upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request review

Could you take a look at the discussion at Template talk:Texas State Highway? I made an edit request about a month ago that I didn't think would be an issue, but I guess it is. I know you're no longer an admin here, but I respect your opinion. –Fredddie™ 06:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fredddie. I'm torn on the matter. While the approach by Majora is technically correct, it isn't particularly helpful to someone looking to create a new sign. I'd suggest starting a thread at COM:AN/COM:VP to get more consensus/eyeballs on the matter. Regards, FASTILY 01:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Admin Request Vote

Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc anymore, I wanted to reach out and thank you for your support on my admin request. Even though it didn't end the way I wanted, I appreciate your support. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Image:PhotoBoothStrip.jpg

Hi, I see you deleted this image as having no source. I also noticed that the file File:MakingAFace.jpg is a cropped version of the same image, but it has a [valid?] source. Should the second be deleted or the first restored or...? A loose noose (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed pictures of Bollywood Hungama

@Fastily: Hi, please give your opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/Bollywood Hungama Copyright. Thanks and Regards! --CptViraj (Talk) 07:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Snapchat black and white logo.svg

File:Snapchat black and white logo.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Snapchat black and white logo.svg

File:Snapchat black and white logo.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ankry (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hello. I'm looking for the original size of File:Mir Mustafa Han Talishinski.jpg. Can you help me and mail me the deleted version? Benyamin-ln (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the first

"Once this discussion is over, we should also be having a discussion to permanently ban Jcb from Commons."

Amazingly, Jcb has already been blocked. (only for 8 minutes, but still, what a way to go!) I fully support you starting a discussion. Jcb still owes apologies to Guanaco (for the witch hunt comment), Drassow (defamation), me (stalking accusations and deleting my essays), Yann (obviously) and many others. No ordinary user would get away with this. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz. Seeing how Jcb was only just unblocked, initiating a ban discussion now would be punitive in nature. That said, if Jcb continues disrupting Commons, then I'll gladly start this discussion. -FASTILY 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Jcb getting himself blocked somehow caused you to change your mind about having a ban discussion? If Jcb had been nice today, you would have started a ban discussion? Just trying to understand. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I still think Jcb is an awful individual; they're an obvious negative to Commons and I would like to see them banned. However, without any recent transgressions with which to base a ban proposal, I doubt there'll be any community support. I note that Jcb hasn't edited since being unblocked. Regards, FASTILY 06:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

RFA Support

Hi. Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fitindia anymore, I wanted to thank you for your support on my recent successful RFA, Your trust and faith in my candidature is much appreciated and I could not have done it without your support. Warm regards FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 15:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

bit of a saga

You're creating a bit of a saga with your bot at c:File:JohnRadfordBusinessman.png:

• Firstly deleting the WP version 15 days after removal from bio infobox
• After my refund request then deleting the WP file Talk page I created, not transferring it to Commons
• And still the file exists at en:File:JohnRadfordBusinessman.png?
  --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wëll Lann P&Ch 016.jpg

Hi!

I started working on files on lb.wikipedia again and I found this {{Grandfathered old file}}.

OTRS was first mentioned in lb-wiki in June 2011. So they did not use permissions in 2006.

I have been away from Commons for some years. Do you know how admins look at old files now? I ask you because you were the one that closed the old DS and you are still active on Commons :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi MGA73. {{Grandfathered old file}} means the file was uploaded before OTRS existed and is therefore ineligible for deletion with {{No permission since}}. Concerns about the legitimacy of any permissions granted should be referred to DR. As for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wëll Lann P&Ch 016.jpg, I haven't been an admin on Commons for quite some time, and without the ability to view deleted revisions I couldn't tell you why I deleted the file. Regards, FASTILY 00:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The file is from before OTRS (2006). I guess it would have helped if I had added {{Grandfathered old file}} back then. But sadly I found the template after the file was deleted and I had forgotten about the now deleted file. I cant blame you for not remembering all files lol. Have a nice day. --MGA73 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Ok Face Sketch.svg

File:Ok Face Sketch.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: COM:DW [34] Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

1989 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Ok Face Sketch.svg

File:Ok Face Sketch.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

~riley (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Facebook black and white logo.svg

Hi. Would you mind cropping the subject file?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. It's actually 2 images: a dark logo (top) and a white logo (bottom) -FASTILY 22:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi friend

Hope you’re doing OK. Despite our differences, I hope you and me can be able to have the same respect for each other. You’ve gone good work, that’s a fact, and you will always be something special to Commons, so I’m very pleased that to this day, you’ve let no one get in your way and you have continued to contribute to Commons. For that I say, thank you. 1989 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Indiana State Stone (Sculpture).jpg

Hello. As a enwiki admin, can you please verify the veracity of File:Indiana State Stone (Sculpture).jpg? I just can't trust the transfer by CBNWGBB. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:London_Street_View

London Street View has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding Template:LicenseReview to a file checked before

Hi, you have closed an deletion request here 7 years ago. You already have reviewed the license so can you add {{LicenseReview}} template to the file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuCKY (talk • contribs) 00:00, 25 May 2020‎ (UTC)

Hi LuCKY. Looks like this was already done by another editor -FASTILY 09:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Cib-mojang (CoreUI Icons v1.0.0).svg

Hi Fastily. One month ago, you removed a speedy deletion notice from the aforementioned file, citing a pending deletion request. This request was later closed as delete, so should this file also be deleted? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IceWelder. I have nominated it for deletion. Regards, FASTILY 09:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

deletion request?

Similarly to your decision here, I similarly doubt the other images uploaded by Johnd047 (talk · contribs). Can this be expedited, or should I continue creating DRs for each? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fourthords. These will need to be nominated either individually or as a mass-DR. You may find VisualFileChange.js helpful for quickly creating mass-DRs. -FASTILY 06:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Can you please slow down with the deletion requests, so discussion can happen on the ones you already submitted. --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're in luck, I haven't nominated anything for over a day now -FASTILY 08:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Svgalbertian (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thx

Q739182465 (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Body Of Rajendra Lahiri 407.jpg

Hi! I noticed this DR and other like it. You closed the DR with the reason "... we have no idea when this was published".

According to {{PD-India}} "Photographs created before 1960 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911." Notice the word "creation".

Since he died in 1927 it should be safe to assume that the photo is taken in 1927 and that is a long time before 1960. So it should be PD in 1977 or 1978 that is also before the URAA date.

Do you have any other concerns?

If restored it would be better to use {{PD-India-photo-1958}} instead of {{PD-India}}. --MGA73 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example is File:Rare Photo of Ahmedabad Congress 1921.jpg that is from 1921 with the extra information that "This rare photo was published in the Prabha (Hindi magazine) of India in 1922". Since it is from 1921 it is PD in both India and the US. --MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi MGA73. I'm no longer an admin on Commons and can't see the deleted revisions, much less recall why I deleted the file in the first place. If you think it should be restored, please feel free to do so. Regards, FASTILY 05:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Darn I keep forgetting that. Sorry. The uploader was really bad at providing the right sources and to explain why images were PD. Example he found an old PD photo and scanned it and uploaded it as own work. So my guess is that at some point Commons just lost faith in him and deleted images to be sure. Okay I will have a look and restore if I think it is safe. --MGA73 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Starbird chicken logo.png

File:Starbird chicken logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2603:301D:22B2:4000:85FC:A115:30EB:DDEF 03:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Starbird wings logo.png

File:Starbird wings logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2603:301D:22B2:4000:85FC:A115:30EB:DDEF 03:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Starbird chicken logo small.png

File:Starbird chicken logo small.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

2603:301D:22B2:4000:85FC:A115:30EB:DDEF 03:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Consider temporary undeleting some Australian road signs or not?

Actually, the one who is concerning this isn't me, it's @MGA73: .

Some years ago, you decided to delete some Australian road signs. Now this results those problems: MGA73 think that the signs are not copyrightable per Threshold of originality but the only way we can be absolutely sure is if we have the High Court of Australia to give us a clear verdict. The idea of putting signs up at the road is not new or original. The idea of adding white letters/numbers on blue background for example is not new or original (Denmark uses blue signs with white letters too). You can't copyrigt color so the color is not a problem. Even the font is free per Highway Gothic. So that user really can't see anything brilliant or mindblowing or even just slightly original about those signs. At least as long as the signs are just a few numbers or letters. If they make a big info board with drawings, maps etc. then it is of course different. If it was me that user would not delete or move anything from en.wiki to Commons untill the deletion request on Commons is closed.

For example the idea of putting up roadsigns... IF the idea is copyrightable then who has the copyright? If the idea was invented in Europe then Australia violate the copyright and have to take down all roadsigns... And just because they have never thought of putting up roadsigns in Australia does not mean that they can suddenly have the copyright. The idea of that makes copyright impossible. Example: A create something and claim the copyright. B says well you may have thought of it first but now that user also thought of it so it is a new idea to me so now that user have the copyright...

That user agree that just because you use a PD font in a work then it does not mean the work is PD. For example if that user write a book using a PD font then the book is of course not PD. But just because that user used the font in a work that is copyrighted does not men that user now have the copyright to the font and can prevent everyone else from using that font.

So if you take the roadsign and remove the font that is PD and you remove the color that is also PD then what is left? The idea of putting up signs on the road.

About Brexit then that user do not think it is releant. Copyright is regulated by Berne convention and WIPO etc. Not the EU.

But as that user say only the High Court of Australia can give us the answer to the question if a roadsign is enought to make the Court impressed. Personally that user think it would give them a problem because in Denmark we have blue signs with white letters so if the High Court of Australia says that it is copyrightable then they also say that Australia violate the copyright of Danish roadsigns.

And that user forgot to comment the OTRS. The ticket say that they can't give an answer for all signs. We have to ask the specific entity that is the owner of the sign if it is copyrighted.

What's your think of these matters? --223.104.228.154 23:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I see myself mentioned here. I think the description of what I have said is fair/accurate. --MGA73 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@223.104.228.154 and MGA73: My suggestion is to ask this on COM:UNDEL since this user not usually focus on their talk page. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by KanavaroT

Hi. I was looking at User:KanavaroT's uploads and came across this undeletion request, which you declined, asking the uploader to send an email to OTRS explaining the situation. Looking at the original deletion discussion, the only reason given was "Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions", so it isn't clear to me what OTRS would have achieved. Was there evidence of the files being used elsewhere before being uploaded on Commons? Looking at their currently non-deleted uploads, all of them have intact EXIF info. While quite a few different cameras were used, they span quite a wide range of years that it's plausible one may have used that many cameras over that time period. Their file descriptions contain enough specific detail to suggest that they are indeed the author. (E.g., from File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg, it seems unlikely that someone stealing a photo off the internet in 2012 would know the name of exact event which took place in 2009. Maybe they were his personal photographer or something.) If the deleted files have similar characteristics, I don't think there's reason to presume otherwise. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot that you're no longer an admin. I'd still like to hear your opinion, though. If you don't object I'll file a new undeletion request. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paul 012. I don't recall why I declined the request (8 years ago!) and given that I cannot view deleted files, I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for you. Sure, feel free to open an undeletion request or ask any active admin to review. Regards, FASTILY 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)