User talk:Postdlf/Archive31

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

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

Request for review of two recent AfDs
Applies to:
 * List of Sony flashes for Multi Interface Shoe
 * List of Sony flashes for Auto-lock Accessory Shoe.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Your photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slide_Rock_State_Park_11.jpg

My test page: http://www.visionsofheaven.com/_aatest/mystical-journeys/sedona/sedona-history

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

Deletion review for Lorenzo Iorio
User:Redwheel has asked for a deletion review of Lorenzo Iorio. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * 2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Clarence Thomas ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Clarence_Thomas check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Clarence_Thomas?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to SEC
 * 2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Elena Kagan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Elena_Kagan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Elena_Kagan?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to SEC
 * 2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sonia Sotomayor ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Sonia_Sotomayor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Sonia_Sotomayor?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to SEC
 * 2017 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Stephen Breyer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Stephen_Breyer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions_of_Stephen_Breyer?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to SEC

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

List of birds of the Madrean Sky Islands
Hello Postdlf: I've been working my way through the (massive) WP:Birds cleanup listing, trying to resolve some of the longterm issues, and today came across the list of birds of the Madrean Sky Islands, which you created way back in 2009. You created it with an unreferenced tag already in it. ??? Did you get this information from somewhere, or are they your personal observations? If the former, can you please provide a reference? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I created it from a category I had nominated for deletion; see discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 11. User:Mmcannis had created that category and populated it (as well as many similar categories), so they would be the best person to ask about sources. postdlf (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay; thanks! MeegsC (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and for the record I have no opinion on the validity of the list either way, so if you do end up nominating it for deletion you don't even need to notify me. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:“Vrindadevi reveals the secrets of Bhakti”, by Mumbiram, Watercolor, 1990, Pune.jpg
Hello postdlf: I remember you could help me before when it came to the usage of artworks in articles. I hope you can advise me in the current, following case:

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

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



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

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

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

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

List of housing cooperatives in Canada up for deletion
You may be interested to know that List of housing cooperatives in Canada has been listed for deletion for a third time - see the discussion here -Mparrault (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hit Comics 41.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hit Comics 41.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Upload characterized as "derivative work" and objection raised to OTRS permission
Dear Postdlf, Some unknown user has put up a template asserting that the file uploaded is a "derivative work". The objection is raised that the source information on the "incorporated work" is missing even while the source of the file is identified. The Editor of Daily Sakal has already sent the letter of permission to wikimedia commons and obtained a ticket number.

File:Article in Daily Sakal about Justice Chandrachud unvailing the portrait of Ramdas Paranjpe by Artist Mumbiram, 28 June, 1992.jpg

We will appreciate if you look into this as you did before when another of our upload was characterized as a "derivative work".--Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)--Kusum Bhagavat

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of men killed by women
hi, wow, i know all of the contributors to the above were "deleters" but it was only open for a bit over 24hours and none of them (apart from the nominator, Listcruft, actually an essay) really elaborated on their "vote"; just wondering why you closed it so soon? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What chance was there that it would be kept? postdlf (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * probably not much:)), i would have added a "Comment" about there being a number of books about women murderers and suggest that it could be renamed to "List of women murderers" with sections for different countries, it would have been interesting to see what other editors thought, but no matter. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That can still be pursued elsewhere, as it would have a very different scope and inclusion criteria. This list was not limited to murderers nor did it include women who killed women. And the fact that we have Category:Female murderers by nationality means that a parallel list is presumptively appropriate. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * okay, thanks very much. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Alabama State Senators has been nominated for discussion
Category:Alabama State Senators, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note
That was an improper use of rollback. We edit-conflicted but I was in the process of self-reverting, and it wasn't vandalism since the template was deleted (if only temporarily). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Might you be interested
Hi Postdlf, I've created a proposal to begin a WikiProject Georgetown University. Since you've been active in editing articles related to Georgetown University in the past, I thought you might be interested to know of this proposal. If you might like to participate in this proposed project or have thoughts on whether it's a good idea, I'd appreciate it if you weighed in.  Ergo Sum  05:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic
I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)