User talk:Postdlf/Archive20

help me to move the Richard aguirre article to a userification status

If you could please help me to move the Richard aguirre article to a userification status so that I can develop the article. Mr. Aguirre is a famous San Diegan with both a political and musical back round that is of notoriety. I feel that I can get the article up to speed with all the references it will need. Thank you for your help. Wikimikesd (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles about Richard Aguirre have been deleted FOUR TIMES through the normal AfD process - twice under the name Richard Aguirre and twice under the name Richard William Aguirre. The repeated consensus is that he is NOT notable. You (postdIf) closed the most recent AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Aguirre (4th nomination); it was my opinion that it should be, not just deleted, but salted. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

undeletion request

I'd like to ask you to undelete my my user page, please. If memory serves, the final version prior to your deletion was non-controversial, and I would like it restored at least long enough that I might archive it off-site. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a "no"? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Being banned for the past month probably will not convince admins to undelete your userpage.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect with history preserved request

• List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters was deleted because it was what most determined to be an unnecessary list, not because it had inaccurate information(I added several references to major newspapers to prove it was accurate). Can you restore the history and put a redirect there to United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico? A lot of information about the protests was recently merged from another article, Navy–Vieques protests [1], which was replaced with a redirect with full history preserved. I believe some of this information might be useful in that location also, just to list the politicians from there who did jail time for joining the protesters, etc. It was already previously discussed on the talk page for the main article that the list article could have some of its contents merged there. Dream Focus 17:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a likely search term, and only a few entries were sourced at the time of its deletion. I'll copy those entries that were sourced from the deleted history to User:Dream Focus/Navy-Vieques protesters for you. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison photo

Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Status?

Can you advise as to the status of this action referencing IP 24.177.120.138? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The ban was for one month and has since expired. If the IP is disruptive again, it will be blocked again. Is there a current problem? postdlf (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I guess I misread the effective date. Thanks JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

About the deletion of Balkan Holidays

The re-worded article of Balkan Holidays has got now deleted again for not being substantially different (which I disagree) from the article that was deleted following the original discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkan Holidays, where you deleted the first version. Could you please give reasons for the reason of deletion in the first instance? 83.244.229.226 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was that notability was not established by reliable sources; there were actually NO sources in the article at the time of it's deletion (the co's own website doesn't count for that analysis). And the repost that was just speedy deleted had NO sources regardless of the additional text it added, so the notability issue was in no way fixed. So the differences were not substantial in any relevant way. Please see WP:CORP and WP:GNG for relevant notability guidelines. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mahlon Pitney.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mahlon Pitney.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 05:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Got another one for you: File:Rufus peckham.gif, replaced by File:Rufus Wheeler Peckham cph.3b30513.jpg (which looks to be the uncropped version of the GIF you found). I didn't list it at FFD; you can just delete it yourself (or I can list it there if you prefer). howcheng {chat} 07:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. The quality of those larger images is really amazing. postdlf (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even doing much with them -- crop the border off, use Photoshop auto-level adjustment, and that's it. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and uploading them at the very least. postdlf (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court List Articles

Your Supreme Court list articles are fantastic! I could scarcely believe it when I stumbled across ones such as 2010 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Looking forward to helping you out next term! Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad they're appreciated. Just be careful that your changes actually match the text of the opinions and not what you think they should be; your correction to the Leal Garcia caption in the per curiam list was contrary to how the Court rendered it. postdlf (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that! I'll be much more careful in the future. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Miss USA, Miss Teen USA and Miss America titleholders who have appeared on reality television

Any chance you could restore a version of this page just so I can save the info for my records? No problem with it being deleted again, I just wished I'd saved the info! Thanks PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Bad Man

This article that you deleted three months ago, Diary of a Bad Man, success and coverage has improved since then. It has been featured on BBC News back in July and over 20 million views on the channel, and regular radio interviews. Surely that should count as notable? 82.46.152.122 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I Agree (article should be undeleted)-Article was delete several months ago for failing to establish notability from a credible source. This is article concerns online webisodes and has attracted the attention of BBC News in July 2011 (Muslim comedian Humza Arshad becomes internet sensation ---- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14222093). Ergo, I feel that this article should be revived from the deleted pages. Opinions welcome add to the discussion. --InExcelsis DeoTalk 18:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you think notability can now be demonstrated, either under WP:GNG or WP:WEB, then please present that argument at Wikipedia:Deletion review, being sure to carefully present and highlight which sources are new (or newly discovered) since the AFD discussions. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog's Pog

Hey, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog's Pog, and deleted Dog's Pog, but the AfD also addressed other articles that were also related to that article as well. Just wanted to bring that to your attention in case you might have missed it. Thank you. - SudoGhost 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was an oversight. Thanks for pointing it out. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Crossfire Deletion Reason

I've seen that you have deleted a first shooter game called, "Cross Fire". Why delete it? (I have never played the game， just wondering why.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.245.57.78 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrossFire (online PC game) established a consensus that the game wasn't notable, meaning that no reliable sources had written about it so there was no basis for an article. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bertha Heyman

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ohio cemeteries

Just saw your post from late July at the Village Pump regarding cemetery notavility. You may be interested in the Internet Archive's copious number of nineteenth-century Ohio county histories — the Allen County, Indiana (Fort Wayne) Public Library owns a massive collection of Ohio county histories, and they arranged for the Archive to get digital copies of them. County histories that I've used are generally careful to pay attention to at least some cemeteries. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I do plan on checking out what they have in this area eventually. Did you have a chance to take a look at my sandbox list I'm working on? The Franklin County section uses the template format I'm developing. Your suggestions are appreciated. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I wish to award you The Socratic Barnstar for your having waded through an incredible long discussion in order to seek the consensus. Trying to follow the discussion must have been akin to chasing a reed in a whilwind. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tinker and Mayo

You seem to be far more knowledgeable about this area of Wikipedia than I, so I shall certainly defer to you. I'm curious though, is there a naming convention guideline for court cases? NW (Talk) 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a written one on WP, no. General practice is to follow the standard "short form" name of a case (that which is used in case citations in legal writing; the Bluebook gives the most widely accepted standards for this), but often simplified to avoid abbreviations or words that might be considered unnecessary for a lay audience. We can see how the Court itself shortens names in both the headers of their case opinions and their lists for each term (e.g., http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=10). I think often our article case names simplify too much, such as by dropping the "Inc." or "Corp." from a party name that tells you right away it's a corporation instead of some other entity, but that's relatively trivial. Thanks for your understanding, and please let me know if you have any other questions. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

hey you can delete this if you want but dont delete the fischers chameleon info please, im trying to expand it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.99.249 (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been naughty

[2] I'm sure the goddess would have spanked you if she could. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

photo requests

I was about to request a New York City photo, but I see you've moved. Could I ask you to update your listing at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers? Got to admit I'm dissapointed to see I can't ask you. You've taken some wonderful pictures. Cloveapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately I don't even get back to NYC very often either (once in the past two years since I left). Just out of curiosity, what was the request going to be? postdlf (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Toby Buonagurio's art installation at the 42nd Street Times Square subway stop Cloveapple (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability.
Message added 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

publication histories

Thanks for your assistance. I've been a skeptic about whether these articles could be improved to be something other than an original compilation of some fans' favorite storylines. But it shows promise. It seems to have a much clearer inclusion criteria that's verifiable, and not just subjective opinion. I appreciate your edits to continually improve these types of lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. The problem with the list is that it's been equivocating mere fictional crossovers, in which a character from one book may appear in another, thus establishing them as part of the same shared fictional universe, with crossover events, in which a single storyline is told across multiple comic book titles as a marketing ploy (something Marvel and DC have done every year since the early 80s, often tying in all of their superhero books with a limited series anchoring the story). It should probably just focus on the events; landmarks of the other kind of crossover can be noted in the articles on the companies' "universes". postdlf (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

why you have deleted the page of adya prasad pandey

Rajeshsng (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)why you delete as i am trying to make it in a new manner just undelete it so that i can make it in a justified manner help to improve the article not just to delete it .

I deleted it according to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adya Prasad Pandey, where the consensus was that the subject was not notable, as that term is used on Wikipedia. If you are confident that you can prove Pandey's notability, either through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, or by meeting the notability guidelines specific to professors at WP:PROF, then please present that evidence clearly and succinctly at Wikipedia:Deletion review. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark

Thanks for your help earlier regarding the footnote cites in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I was wondering if you might be willing to go back to the FA review page (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive1) and see if you might have anything additional to say. The discussion has largely moved beyond proofreading / copyediting issues and is now dealing with content / source issues. Thanks for any insights you can offer. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Typewriter Eraser, Scale X.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Typewriter Eraser, Scale X.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:NBC television network

Category:NBC television network, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

cats

I'll respond on my talk page. Savidan 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to stop changing categories until this is resolved, but I would also ask that you stop reverting what I've done in the interim as well. Savidan 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

One week after my explanation, neither you nor anyone else has responded here. If you are not satisfied, could you please raise your concerns at your earliest convenience. Savidan 03:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Zahm Hall residence hall at Notre Dame

Hi - Can you briefly explain why you deleted the Zahn Hall entry, but have left other Notre Dame residence hall entries up? Dorms are a big part of the culture of Notre Dame, and if one dorm is seen as valid, then all other dorm entires should as well.

Deletion of Zahm Hall residence hall at Notre Dame

Hi - Can you briefly explain why you deleted the Zahn Hall entry, but have left other Notre Dame residence hall entries up? Dorms are a big part of the culture of Notre Dame, and if one dorm is seen as valid, then all other dorm entires should as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znarky (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is a bit flawed. It doesn't follow from the fact that some individual dormitories are worth writing about that all dorms are therefore worth writing about. And "dorm culture" is undoubtedly a big part of campus life at any university that has dorms, which doesn't mean that any particular dorm is a good article subject. The basic guideline is that a subject must have significant coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources. This is all spelled out in my close of the AFD, so you really should take the time to follow those links and read up on Wikipedia standards so you can understand why we do what we do here. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gh87 and his or her deletion debates

Hello, Postdlf. I see that you commented on Gh87's ridiculousness in some of these deletion debates. Well, he or she has gotten worse. Making bizarre claims about when an article can be recreated and what is important in deletion debates about fictional characters, which I responded to.[3] And nominating articles in obvious bad-faith, which I also responded to.[4]

Will you comment on this? don't even think this editor should be nominating articles for deletion. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of anyone who seems to have a crusade, in that they focus most or all of their time in trying to delete a certain kind of thing rather than trying to constructively expand the encyclopedia. Gh87 doesn't have very many edits (particularly for someone who has been registered since 2005), a good portion of which are just tagging things for deletion and participating in deletion discussions, so there's a question of experience but he does seem like he's pretty sure of himself nonetheless. I think you're talking past each other on the deletion/recreation comment; he's right that once an article is deleted at AFD, you can't just recreate it without approval at deletion review if you haven't solved the problems for which it was deleted, it would then be subject to speedy deletion. But let's see how these are all closed before worrying about that.

The biggest problem with Gh87 is that he's just wasting everyone's time with AFDs. These are at best merger/redirection candidates, so per WP:ATD he should have tried to deal with them through normal editing and discussion, and I don't think he's following WP:BEFORE but is instead judging the articles based on their current state. Even in his own comments (such as in the Janet Dillon AFD), he seems to be saying that a character is "not notable enough" or whatever, which doesn't make any reasonable case for deletion. After these are all closed as something other than "delete", if he continues to dump these on AFD we'll have a decent argument that it's disruption pure and simple. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And about recreating an article, I don't think Gh87 was making your argument. I know that an article can't be recreated if the problems for which it was deleted haven't been solved. But I was saying that an article can be recreated without going through some administrative approval process if it gets it right that second time. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. An article that was deleted or redirected in the past is recreated and it stays that second time because it provides notability or otherwise satisfies what it didn't before. I'm not sure if there is a waiting period for which an article can be recreated after it's been deleted.

And, yes, exactly, I agree with what you perceive to be the biggest problem. Thank you again. I felt that I was being ignored as some disruptive IP address by another editor. I edit as an IP address because I like to stay anonymous and have no desire to be a full-time editor on Wikipedia. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting in the User talk:Gh87#More of your bad editing discussion? 174.137.184.36 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Found that article Rajagopal Kamath is deleted. The person is a notable popular science author and researcher who writes in Malayalam. Request for undeletion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.82.37 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you address the reasons why it was deleted, as elaborated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajagopal Kamath? postdlf (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not a self promotion article. HE is a notable popular science author and researcher who has published at least 20 books. Kindly search with an additional 'm'Rajagopal kammath by any search engine. He is a spokesman for science in Kerala for the print and visual media and a proponent of science related achievements to the new generation. If possible kindly undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.83.103 (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate, by reliance on reliable sources, that Kamath meets any of the following guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:PROFESSOR, or WP:WRITER. Just generally asserting that he is important isn't enough. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Need Your Opinion on My Future Reasons for deletion

You gave me the message in my talk page. Therefore, I don't know if I should continue anymore. Before I re-edit my arguments, I shall give you my examples and need your opinions on them:

• "The soap opera is notable; this fictional character is not. Also not enough sources in and out of that article."
• "The show is cancelled, and news only covers the whole soap opera but fails to mention soap opera characters."
• "This fictional character of the soap opera <insert title> is not notable. The news did not cover him/her very much, and almost no one has inserted "real world" perspectives. The fact that the article did not improve from the current status as plot-only article suggests that no one outside soap dedication is aware of this fictional character."

What do you think? How long should I break myself from nominating for PROD and AfD? --Gh87 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

causa sui (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I just wanted to voice my concern. I hope you won't take it as an accusation, as I typically respect your well-reasoned opinions even when I disagree. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I won't press the issue further. I feel it would be hypocritical to complain about raising the drama level and then proceed to raise the drama level. Just don't confuse pressing your case the longest with pressing your case the strongest. Otherwise, keep up the good work and I'm sure we'll see each other around. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1

The debate resulted a delete. If you want to challenge the results, try Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Gh87 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Um, you don't really need to tell me about DRV, but thanks. The deleting admin recreated them all as redirects. I would have preferred for their histories to be preserved, but whatever. It's really not worth troubling over. postdlf (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's your decision. However, if you want to recover histories, go to WP:REFUND. --Gh87 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:CBS television network

Category:CBS television network, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible faulty AfD

Re this AfD, the nominator User:Dkchana ( contribs) appears not to have placed the appropriate tag at the top of the article Jimmy Hayes (ice hockey). I know it's stale, but since I can't see the article history, could you check? I'm looking into things, due to a flurry of prods, speedies, and AfD noms. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks right to me. The deleted edit history shows that a proper notice and link to the right AFD discussion were placed on the article by Dkchana when it was listed. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking. Funny, that doesn't show in the user contributions... --Lexein (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be in his "deleted user contributions" once the tagged article was deleted, which I don't think is visible to nonadmins. postdlf (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Doh. Of course. --Lexein (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Network Template TFD 2

I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. It looks like you are in support of Keeping the templates, but you did not say so clearly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about it. For now I just wanted to critique an invalid deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Time is running out and it is a very close vote between delete and no consensus. One vote could be the difference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Postdlf! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article -- Jessica Greenwalt

Hello there, I noticed you took care of deleting the Jessica Greenwalt page (which was found un-notable by consensus), but there is still a link to the deletion discussion on the page. Would it be possible to remove the link to the discussion either now or at some point in the future, to avoid unrelated parties stumbling across it and perhaps misinterpreting the mundane nature of the deletion discussion? (I'm only asking to try to help Jessica out.)

Berlinetta1492 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the link that shows up in the deletion log, no, there's no way to remove that, nor am I understanding why you think it should be removed even if it could be. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I did mean either the deletion log itself, or the pink box displaying the deletion log on the wiki page. The reason I asked is because I have been told that some people felt the content of the articles for deletion discussion may cast the the subject of the deleted article in a negative light. Berlinetta1492 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello, I noticed you commented on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana. There is a related discussion on some of the buildings from that list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Interstate Center (Missoula). Any insights and opinions you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you --JonRidinger (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Art of Problem Solving

There used to be a Wikopedia article for this, and it has been deleted. I noticed that it was restored, only to be once again deleted by you. Why, and if not for a reason, can you restore it, as it seems to be a VERY linked to (in other WikiP articles) and searched up (found stats.) organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadcubed (talk • contribs) 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

When you saw in the deletion log that I was the one who deleted it, you also saw a link to the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art of Problem Solving, which is why it was deleted. Thanks for pointing out the links to the article; I have removed them. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi there Postdlf. I understand you're one of the admins supervising the flow of deletion requests on deletions discussions board. May I ask you to take a quick look at the discussion on article Vrezh which is still open despite the majority to keep? It seems that the discussion may have been overlooked for some reason because it's not even recorded at 2011 October 20 archive (the date the filing party tagged it). I'd really appreciate your help. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just relisted it so it can be properly logged. postdlf (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

List of new jack swing Artistes

Thanks for saving this. I despair at the logic of some Wikipedia editors sometimes. :) Vexorg (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Paradise Lost (2013 film)

You recently took part in a deletion discussion for this film, but given new information that the film is now on hold[5][6], would suggest a redirect to Paradise Lost#Films is more appropriate as per WP:NFF, and as per suggested by multiple editors at the deletion discussion. Would appreciate input at Talk:Paradise Lost (2013 film)#Redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alana Lee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alana Lee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alana Lee (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Images of art possibly mis-tagged as unfree

I've noted a few items in tagging for {{Photo of art}} where based on the seeming date of installation, the use of a non-fair use tag might not actually be needed. I've tagged the small number of cases as {{Wrong license}} but would appreciate someone with your level of expertise reviewing. File:Solomon Juneau Memorial Statue from Milwaukee Dec. 2010.JPG being one such example. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about something

Wikipedia:Image_copyright_wizard this makes NO mention of the derivative rights issue you brought up :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a bad omission. Derivative works are one of the most difficult issues to deal with in copyright. I'll see what I can do with some of the areas you've mentioned when I have more time. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sunny jim.gif needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Sunny jim.gif appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Postdlf/Archive20}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Author information

Hi. Could you complete the author fields for File:Alexander C. Rhind.jpg and File:Anthony Comstock.jpg? Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Comstock one already has that information; it was published in a 1913 book that apparently did not credit the photographer. I have restated the book's author in the image author field.

As for the Rhind one, it is now nearly six years since I uploaded the image, something always to take account of when you're leaving such a message for an uploader. The illustration of Rhind in this 1888 book clearly derived from the photograph that I uploaded, so there should be no concern that it is not public domain even though we cannot identify the photographer. My best guess as to where I got the particular uploaded image is that it was scanned by me from a biography of Samuel Francis Du Pont (possibly Lincoln's Tragic Admiral, but I'm not sure) as that's apparently what I was working on that day and I really haven't done much else on Wikipedia in the way of U.S. Naval subjects. postdlf (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure all the information was included. Cloudbound (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Abbey close

Hi. While I don't disagree with the ultimate result, I did want to pop by to offer my opinion that it is probably not a good precedent to have a closing administrator make the main case for a keep. Let nature take its course and then rule on the evidence — or make a defense case like everyone else and let someone else make the call — but please don't do both. Again, the call is right, I just believe closing administrators should be uninvolved in the debate. If something is closed early as Snow, there should be snow showing... Carrite (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, yes, but I thought this was so far beneath the level of a reasonable AFD nom effort that there wasn't anything actually debatable. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for defending certain images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Older images

Recently I started an effort to add {{Information}} to a load of older images, However because I was told not to add 'assumed' authors/sources, a large number of these images are now getting tagged by the FSII bot on the technicality of not having a source that bot recognises. Perhaps you could look over the contributions of myself and that bot, raising the issue in an appropriate forum? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think one lesson from this is that you shouldn't be adding that template if you can't fill in all the fields. Leave it for someone else to complete if you can't. postdlf (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Which defeats the purpose of having a wiki in the first place :(. It's a shame some users can 'steamroller' others into not contributing. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:District-Arizona.gif

Could you please consider undeleting this file? They were of different file formats (not eligible for F8), and the local one was a moving graphic. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"moving graphic"? What moved? postdlf (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch, closely. Reload the page if you miss it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I'll be damned. But I'll leave it to others to figure out why that's useful. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)