User talk:Fastily

Query about Size Reduction Bot

At least three of the eight image files just tagged by User:FBot for size reduction seem to have been tagged slightly inappropriately (though understandably so). (And in all 8 copesi the article copy is much smaller than the file copy). File:2001Satellite.jpg‎ is a high-res reproduction of a very very low-res original. To further reduce would downgrade the image unacceptably. The files File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG and File:BondChase.JPG are both montages of which the individual elements are already at fairly low resolution, even if as a collectivity they seem to be at higher resolution. With all of these three, I would petition removal of the tag. The other 5 I would be glad to upload smaller resolution copies.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See section above. Someone else asked the exact same question. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question is how do I contest the resolution of the three I mentioned?? I don't see that addressed elsewhere here? (Glad to know the others will be auto-reduced.)--WickerGuy (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before you try something like that, I think it's fair to warn you that you'll be fighting a total uphill battle, as long-standing consensus is against you: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 9, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 9, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot 2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot. Also, see WP:NFCC#3, Wikipedia:NFC#Image_resolution. In case tl;dr, non-free files are reduced in resolution, especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement (i.e. copyright violators will continue to violate copyright, but Wikipedia is not going to assist them in doing so). Furthermore, non-free files are permissible on the Wikimedia Foundation's servers on the premises of Fair use, that is, inferior versions of copyrighted works may be used solely to educate, nothing more. I have reviewed the images myself and I see nothing that necessitates such high resolution. In the end, the size reduction will only be about ~80% of the original (reduction of 50 pixels on both length and width). Of course, if your heart is still firmly set on contesting this tag and 'saving' 50 pixels, I'll list the files at FFD for you, but you can expect someone to reduce the images, speedy the old versions, and speedy close the discussion. I'm only taking the time to explain this to you because you seem like a decent editor and because your time would be better spent on other things. Your call. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had quite a few tagged as well, and I have one question. While I'm certainly not looking for any sort of medals for the images I've uploaded, I'm proud that I uploaded them and I would like to preserve the credit of me as the original uploader. The bot will preserve this after it reduces the images, right? Cheers :> Doc talk 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should put "uploaded by Doc9871" in the file description page. There is a way to revdel the thumbnail without revdeling the authorship information or the timestamp, but it's rarely done because as I understand it, it requires a great deal more effort. What this means is that your work will be preserved in the Show History tab readout, but not on the file description page itself. Sorry, but as I am not an admin, I can't control how this is done. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that won't be necessary Doc, you'll still be credited as page creator when you go click the history tab. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I may as well join in here as start a new section. I have just had a bot place a request for me to modify 53 files on my user page. I totally support the need to stay with in the law. When these 53 shots were first put up, I erroneously had them tied into a list page (We are talking industrial archeology here), and they and the elaborate text descriptions were deleted- I read the conditions of Fair use and image size very carefully, I have written the the accompanying articles so e- verything complies- it was water tight. Take for example File:Mars_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0016.png‎ (549 × 390 pixels, file size: 163 KB, MIME type: image/png). The guidelines now say that:

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail.

The rationale says the image was taken from a scan- so it is obvious that thre would be a danger of moiré patterns. I am perfectly happy with the image being edited by User:ANOther and being re-saved at a lowerres- but I create text, write articles, comply with WP legislation etc within the limited time I have available. I take it as a compliment that someone has seen fit to c&P all the text of the 53 articles using these images and publish them on paper as a book. I don't however see why I should have by agenda dictated by a bot, that has not correctly interpreted policy. I would be happy if the image had, as in policy, 'received' a closer review- and as a result an administrator had corrected any error- but it hasn,t- I would be exceedingly grateful if an administrator would set up a bot to

remove ally these erroneous tags
add a tag saying

As a general rule of thumb, images where one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or where the image size approaches 1.0 megapixels or more, will likely require a closer review to assure that the image needs that level of resolution. This is not a discouragement to use such images, but editors should assure that rationales fully explain the need for such level of detail. Would an administrator look at this image
automatically reduce the resolution OR

enter in discussion on the talk page as to a better way forward OR

actively attempt to get a OTRS statement from the copyright holder

tag it has been reviewed

I get more than vaguely irritated when rules drawn up for the POP music industry are applied where they are not relevant With 10000 edits under my belt, I really can understand why experienced editors leave WP — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without a response I am left hanging- what is your thinking? --ClemRutter (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another G6 Deletion

Hmm, you deleted Talk:Butlin's/Butlin's articles" which was transcluded in Talk:Butlins another oops? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure? :o -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, as the discussion at the bottom of the Talkpage discusses the article (and other articles that are related) go through phases of being "Butlin's" and phases of being "Butlins" unfortunately those moving it never remember to move all the associated subpages - it's been stable for a while now so hopefully won't happen again. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The re-salting of Sierra McCormick

Fastily, before you deleted and salted the Sierra McCormick article again, did you ask the unsalting Admin why he unsalted? Did you read the request on his talkpage? Things may have changed since the AfD, and for "up and coming" actors, relying on a decision made 5 months ago - conducted before the TV show that she's in was broadcast (on one of the biggest kids TV channels and shown worldwide) - doesn't really make much sense. Do I have to take this to DRV? (side issue - have you ever thought that with our gender bias and lack of younger editors, deleting articles that they are most interested in, might not be in the WMF's best interests?) The-Pope (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the logs and didn't find an instance where the page was unsalted. At any rate, please do consider listing it at WP:DRV if the original AfD no longer applies so the page isn't deleted again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request

Would you mind restoring User:Hurricanefan25/ACE2011, which you deleted on the 28th? Thanks. HurricaneFan 25 15:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. NW (Talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:27.110.129.206

I warned them on the three revert thing but they technically already broke it as you can see here as they reverted 3 times and then went and ran their mouth when they're the one's posting false stuff. Swifty*^talk_contribs 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. If they continue vandalizing, let me know and I'll block them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Fastily. Swifty*^talk_contribs 04:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evan Mancuso

Thanks for your intervention in this matter. Unfortunately I'm not sure they're going to "get it" and move on. Honestly I wouldn't see the user page as a big deal if they ever contributed elsewhere on wikipedia. But all they've done is try to create this article, and after that was speedy deleted multiple times they moved on to self-promotion via the user page. 128.114.59.200 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. If they continue spamming, let me know so I can block them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

164,025 figure

Hi there, I was looking for a response to my question over at User talk:Fbot. I was wondering how you came to the decision to mark all non-free images greater than 164,025 pixels square as needing to be resized. As far as I can tell, there is no Wikipedia policy on the pixel size other than 1 mega pixel (1,000,000 pixels square), but even that is only a guideline and editors are anyways still supposed to look at each image on a case by case basis. I do see that User:Sven Manguard got a similar number from User:DASHBot, but that Bot only resizes images that have already been marked for resize by a human editor. It sure seems to me that you and Sven just invented a new policy based on an arbitrary mathematical figure, and for the last two days have been using your bot to enforce it across thousands of image pages. I see there's discussion on this above, but just where does this number comes from?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're asking me this, I take it you didn't bother to read Fbot's FAQ, which, incidentally, is linked to the bot's talk page in a big red banner. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see how it relates to DASHBot, but how does that relate to Fbot? Why use that number, and not one that Wikipedia has on their policy page, such as 1MP? Again, the thing for me is that DASHBot is only dealing with images that human users checked as needing to be resized.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 23:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale is for single use

I thought that Fair Use means you can use something for a single purpose, and my submission of File:Soanya Ahmad (from Channer Conversations).jpg was just such a photo. Why did you and your colleagues label this as unquestionable infringement, when I made every effort to justify my use of the screenshot. It is an option in the list of rationales, in your own guidelines, and I followed it exactly, giving the reason that to illustrate the interview I needed an image capture from the video used as a reference in the article. I had all this information in the Discussion page, which you also deleted just now. Why, why, why? I feel I have been mistreated here, and wish to protest this unwarranted action of speedy deletion. Have you nothing better to do than to annoy other editors here? --Skol fir (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. My mistake,

Restored -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer annoyed. :-) Sorry for the outburst above, but I did think I had a good case here. I have added more talk to the Discussion page, in case anyone else gets ideas. --Skol fir (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this wikipedia article for YOHO Artist Studios ok now? You said it was too promotional last time. Thank you.

It could still use some improvement. Some links you may find helpful: WP:YFA, WP:GNG, WP:ADS, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:RFF -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg

I don't know if you're aware of this, but a photo you deleted pursuant to a PUF dicussion was inadvertently re-uploaded. It is now the subject of another PUF discussion. See [1]. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for letting me know. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the PUF is about to end by default, in effect reversing your deletion and the previous PUF. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights, etc.

I find the photo rules here mystifying, which is why nowadays I only upload photos that I've taken and don't bother with fair use anymore. In regard to the Centpacrr complaint, I'm lost. Can you point me to where you explained why the Schumin picture is allowed but the Centpacrr picture is not? I'm not trying to rile you, I just don't understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never did, actually. I have an issue solely with Centpacrr's behavior and uploads, not SchuminWeb's. I evaluate files based on their own merit, and not in comparison to others. Nonetheless, if there is a concern with SchuminWeb's photos, this should be brought up with him, not me; I do not speak for him. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I advised him to either consult with a copyright guru like Delta, or to take it to ANI, so that someone can determine whether one, or both, or neither, are allowed here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undeletion / move request

Hi, you deleted "File talk:TnormCDF.png" can you move that to wherever the new file is? Actually, I created a .svg and I wonder if the talk could be moved over there. 0¹⁸ (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flle was transwikied to Commons. You'll have to ask someone with importer rights or a steward to move the talk page over there for you. If you want me to move the svg version of the file to commons, please give me the link to it.Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about your just undelete it and I can copy it over by hand? Every interaction I have with commons is just more annoyance--you loose the talk page, you have to have a new login/and login... I'd rather the svg just stayed on the en server. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do that, attribution issues. The history of the talk page should remain intact if it is going to be moved to Commons. Also, there's no need to create a new account, simply merge/create a unified login. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Heil redirect

Hi i had contested the speedy tag on the page and and had added comments to the talk page expressing why. I also gave reason showing use in reliable sources countering the arguments that had previously caused deletion. The deletion summary was "‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)" how is it non controversial when I was contesting it and my comments had not even had a chance to be read. RafikiSykes (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to delete it under G4, my bad. See User:Fastily/E#G4 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InnerWorkings

Is there any way you can possibly take another look at this page? Is there something specific that is problematic? Perhaps some insight on reworking the article, Thanks.Gsimon818 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastily/E#G11 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SoilCure Microbial Amendment

Hi, A quick one for you (since I've come across you a few times in relation to deletions). I listed SoilCure Microbial Amendment for AFD under notability. Its an article about a product with 2 lines about the product then everything else about general soil science. I'm now thinking it should be a speedy for spam (especially if you look at how the creator is linking it to every other article in existence) Special:Contributions/Marcjarod. Is it too late to change? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, definitely not.

Deleted -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you delete the previous uploads on the uploads I updated? Thanks! Swifty*^talk_contribs 05:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, do you need to wait the full 7 days to do this? I was going to do it but then I saw the timestamp--Guerillero | My Talk 06:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is to wait 7 days, but you can go ahead and delete them now, especially since James has requested that we do so. Would you like to do the honors? Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

does this look right? --Guerillero | My Talk 14:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old versions deletions

I see you're tagging old revisions of non-free pics for deletion when they are not used anywhere.[2] I would think that situation is the norm, and deleting them should be OK. But it's wikipedia's upload process that keeps the old versions visible. The editors who upload them don't have any control over that. Or do they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the original uploaders of the files do not have control over whether past versions of files are visible or not. All previous versions of a given file are visible unless an admin deletes them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are past versions of non-free files visible at all? Or is it because licensing can change and it would be too much trouble? To put it another way, what if I discovered the Polo Grounds photo was actually pre-1923? (It wasn't, but let's suppose.) Then I would change the license to PD-1923, but the prior versions would still be invisible? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since the only way to get to a past version appears to be via a link,

[3]

File:20110827190114!Polo Grounds after 1923.JPG

then they can't be displayed in articles anyway, so what's the purpose of deleting them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insert Coin(s)

I am wondering why my post for Insert Coin(s) is deleted when it's a general information page for the bar in downtown Las Vegas. Is there certain text that can be deleted to have this approved?

Insert Coin(s) is a videolounge and gamebar located in downtown Las Vegas, NV. The video game centric bar and lounge features more than 50 vintage arcade games from the 1980s through the early 2000s, custom booths with every major video game console, a dance floor and special events each night of the week featuring top local DJs and video djs.^[1]

Christopher LaPorte opened Insert Coin(s) in April of 2011 following a strategic social media campaign involving many local press outlets such as the Las Vegas Weekly,^[2] which originally found LaPorte and wrote about his quest to open the bar in Las Vegas.[2] Insert Coin(s) has found huge success in downtown Las Vegas, inspiring other local entrepreneurs to invest in the future of this Metropolitan area.

References

^ www.insertcoinslv.com
^ Las Vegas Weekly

External Links

(3) http://www.facebook.com/INSERTCOINSLV (4) http://www.twitter.com/InsertCoinsLV (5) http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/feb/14/new-fremont-street-business-marry-video-games-bar-/

RyanBrunty (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Ryan[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_1

I have opened up a deletion review following a close of yours a little while ago. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 1

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 1. 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. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elm photo deletions

I would like to point out that with one exception, all the photographers were contacted, and duly emailed Permissions at Wiki to articulate their full consents for the photos to be used. Perhaps you could explain why these have all been completely ignored? What an utter waste of time and effort. Ptelea (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deletion 2013 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship

Hi. The Competition will be held after 1 and a half year and the qualification will take place in autumn 2012. I don't see Obvious reasons to delete it. If you see other football pages they have been created before their beginning in long time.--Uishaki (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

I have concerns about this user page, and I would like to know your thoughts. As I mentioned on the user's talk page, all of the editor's contributions are edits to this subpage and images uploaded to be used on it; it appears to be a private research project which has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. I may be the only non-bot who has noticed, and the editor has continued on without responding to my comment. Thoughts?--~T P W 13:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion?

Hello,

I have noticed that my contribution on "Introduction to trade-mark law in Canada" (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_trademark_law_in_Canada;_passing_off&action=edit&redlink=1) has been deleted. Although there's already a page dealing with trade-marks in general, my contribution was more specific to Canadian Law and didn't seem redundant to me. Moreover, I've been asked to cover this particular topic on Wikipedia for one of my Law classes, for which I will get a grade, so it's important that my contribution be taken into account.

Could you please reconsider my contribution?

Camiliac (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRAMMARLY

Sir,

The page for Grammarly was deleted (actually moved to Lexin/grammarly). It was an informational piece about a type of software, I don't believe it read like an ad anymore than the page about Skype or Word reads like an ad. They are all software. I can rewrite, but would like to hear your input.

Tenzingnineoneone (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use revisions template

Hello Fastily, as you are currently the primary user of the {{Orphaned fair use revisions}} template, could you respond to the this inquiry. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken deletion: No copyright violation

Hello,

You deleted an image I uploaded:

23:05, 29 November 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:The Sexual Side Effects.jpg" ‎ (F9: Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission)

This image was taken by a photographer I employed to photograph the event. The image is not copyrighted and I have permission to use it how I wish—including sharing it on Wikipedia.

Will you please restore the image?

Thanks,

Clay

[1] Golden, John (2011-04-04). "In Yonkers More Room for the Creative". Westchester County Business Journal. p. 30. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[2] Leitner, Joel, "Appraisal File 6038", Nepperhan Business Center and Nepperhan Plaza, An Industrial, Office, and Retail Complex, Yonkers, New York., pp. 3–26, Identification of {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[3] Beard, Rick; Flynn, Rosalie; Zopes, Peter (24 Aug 1983). In the Mills. pp. 1–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[4] Beard, Rick; Flynn, Rosalie; Zopes, Peter (24 Aug 1983). In the Mills. pp. 1–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[5] Beard, Rick; Flynn, Rosalie; Zopes, Peter (24 Aug 1983). In the Mills. pp. 1–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[6] "The Alexander Smith and Sons' Carpet Company". Victorian Source. Retrieved 2011-08-04.

[7] Beard, Rick; Flynn, Rosalie; Zopes, Peter (24 Aug 1983). In the Mills. pp. 1–8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[8] Leitner, Joel, "Appraisal File 6038", Nepperhan Business Center and Nepperhan Plaza, An Industrial, Office, and Retail Complex, Yonkers, New York., pp. 3–26, Identification of {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[9] Leitner, Joel, "Appraisal File 6038", Nepperhan Business Center and Nepperhan Plaza, An Industrial, Office, and Retail Complex, Yonkers, New York., pp. 3–26, Identification of {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[10] "Smith, Alexander, Carpet Mills Historic District". National Park Service National Register of Historic Places. Retrieved 2011-11-01.

[11] Leitner, Joel, "Appraisal File 6038", Nepperhan Business Center and Nepperhan Plaza, An Industrial, Office, and Retail Complex, Yonkers, New York., pp. 3–26, Identification of {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[12] Rendon, Jim (2004-09-12). "Moving Out, Seeking the Next SoHo". The New York Times. pp. 11 1. Retrieved 2011-08-04.

[13] Martinez, Arlene (2008-08-24). "Could it be another Soho?". The Morning Call. Retrieved 2011-08-30.

[14] Bill, Fallon (2011-03-2008). "Industrial Arts: Carpet Mills becomes studio central". Westchester County Business Journal. p. 1. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

[15] "YOHO Artist Studios". Retrieved 2011-08-04.

[16] Stewarto-Cousins, Senator Andrea (2009-08-18). "Proclamation in Recognition of YOHO Artist Studios" (PDF). The Senate of the State of New York. Retrieved 2011-08-04.

[17] Amicone, Philip A. (2009-08-16). "City of Yonkers Proclamation" (PDF). Office of the Mayor. Retrieved 2011-08-04.

[18] Golden, John (2011-04-04). "In Yonkers More Room for the Creative". Westchester County Business Journal. p. 30. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[19] Leitner, Joel, "Appraisal File 6038", Nepperhan Business Center and Nepperhan Plaza, An Industrial, Office, and Retail Complex, Yonkers, New York., pp. 3–26, Identification of {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

[20] www.insertcoinslv.com

[21] Las Vegas Weekly

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[2]