User talk:Fastily

Alexey Pivovarov

Why you deleted the article & He is really famous Russian journalist and he was brave during latest protests - he refused to speak on air if media will keep silence!--94.228.193.11 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#PROD -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for useless link, but I want to see your answer here. Or deletion was just your vandalism?--94.228.193.11 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Query

Fastily, look at this article [[1]]. It's an autobiography of another Wikipedian user. Please delete it. Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, I have a concern to raise about. Apparently in December 2011, User:PurpleHeartEditor was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Asgardian, whereas he claims that he isn't and has actually said so that he isn't. May I request he be unblocked, or should he continue to be blocked? Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 07:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence (accessible to admins with the checkuser right) suggests otherwise. If User:PurpleHeartEditor/User:Asgardian wants to be unblocked, he will have to appeal directly to the arbitration committee. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with user 46.196.33.96 and 88.247.101.165 AGAIN!!!!!!!

Hey, A few days ago I informed you about user 46.196.33.96/ 88.247.101.165 that he is simply destroys the article Ben Gurion Airport. You warned him and he does'nt listen. I'd love if you help me again.--Friends147 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All the IP did this time was add a link to qantas.com. If you don't mind my asking, what's wrong with it? -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What are talking about? Which qantas? i mean to the article Ben Gurion Airport (in Tel Aviv)! he delete everytime things from the article without proof (i have) and if i'm show him my right proof he just ignore.I'm really don't understand why did you get me wrong.--Friends147 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider taking this issue to the Administrator's noticeboard. I think they may be able to help you with such an issue of long standing abuse.

Sound file nominations

If you are in fact carefully reviewing the files that you nominate, why did you nominate a national anthem, a recording of a Walt Whitman poem, and recordings of multiple Wikipedia articles for deletion? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am personally of the belief that these files should be deleted, so I nominated them for deletion to see if others agreed with me. In case you haven't noticed, I am perfectly open to opposing opinions; if someone finds a file to be useful, I'll be happy to default to keep/move to commons. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So in your view, the national anthem of Malaysia as performed by the US Navy band should have been deleted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, error rate is very high ( Apollo12 - Strollingonthemoononeday.ogg or K-V Street Video1.ogg ). Quality of typical sound/video hosted on wikipedia is low but it is not valid reason to nominate everything Bulwersator (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are both...files on Commons. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, they are on commons because you moved them there after you nominated them for deletion, and then others pointed out that your nominations were bad. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I stand by what I nominated. If I thought otherwise, I would have withdrawn the noms a long time ago. Since you obviously ignored what I had to say, I will repeat myself one more time: I have listened to all these files and am of the opinion that they are not useful to the project, so I have nominated them for community review. As always, you are welcome to disagree and voice your opinion at FFD. However, please refrain from making this a personal matter. I do not appreciate your rude, condescending messages and the disruptive banners you placed on FfD pages. I have always found you to be reasonable and well-mannered, but your recent behavior is rather unbecoming of an administrator. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection

This seems good to me (although my other two suggestions still stand). I was already using this system in fact, because Twinkle's batch unprotect feature is nifty, so I already have my unprotections spread over four pages. So yeah, sounds good to me, maybe get more than one admin to "subscribe" to these? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I was planning on having the bot notify the unprotecting admin via talk page message. I suppose we could set up a page for admins to watch, but IMO, that seems a bit unnecessarily complicated. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of the American Old West

I noticed you deleted a category similar to this and I would like to request restoring that please. Although this category is empty at the moment it is used as a administrative category and may or may not have items in it at any given time as they are identified or found. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to be patient thinking you were busy but since you have been working and responding to other questions since I left mine I think your ignoring me so I guess I will just recreate the category. I shouldn't have to recreate a maintenance category like this just because it doesn't have an image in it at the moment. I guess I will have to go through and mark the 800+ maintenance categories with the big ugly Admins please don't delete me if I'm empty banner. --Kumioko (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather irrational that you gave me only six hours to respond before assuming that your message was going to be ignored. For the record, Wikipedia:There is no deadline, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service. I respond to talk page queries as soon as I have time. Have patience! -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly as an experienced editor you should have known better than to delete that category anyway since its obviously a maintenance category. I shouldn't have to tag hundreds of categories with an unnecessary gaudy message when the purpose of the category is obvious but yet this is the 10th time just in the last couple months I've had to restore one of these because some admin has deleted it without going through a proper CFD process. And just because Wikipedia:There is no deadline, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service is true of others time as well. --Kumioko (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Files in Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates that are already on Commons

Hi Fastily. What about checking Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates for files that are already on Commons? File:Glasgow Anniesland (Scottish Parliament constituency).svg for example was already there before being tagged by your bot. --Leyo 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's User:MGA73bot job. As it stands, once MGA73's bot tags a file with {{Now commons}}, my bot removes {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. Unfortunately, the Java framework I use does not have the ability to check if a duplicate of a file exists on Commons. While I can think of a number of extremely crude hacks to possibly remedy this issue, they'll at best be >50% accurate :\ Sorry. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's just a matter of fact that if I decide to have another admin double check a transfer a made, it takes up to several weeks until NowCommons is added by a bot (if not added by me). In de.wikipedia, it usually only takes a few hours. --Leyo 09:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow... My own job :-) I started tagging after User:BotMultichill stopped tagged the files. My plan was only to do it from time to time because it makes toolserver beg for mercy :-D Later "tag_nowcommons.py" was changed and it made the bot tag files that should not be tagged (files with a keep local and pages where the file is on Commons and page on en-wiki is only a description etc.). After a long time of doing nothing i tried to make a query on toolserver but the query was so big it failed. However, I found a work around that included manual work. So that is why my bot does not tag the files sooner.

I thought that as long as there is plenty of files with a NowCommons then it is not a big problem that files were not tagged. But I see the problem with the current Move to Commons Drive. So we should find a better solution. I will do a few tests to see if I can find a solution. Perhaps we can copy the bot from de-wiki? --MGA73 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot on de.wikipedia is RevoBot. It does not tag NoCommons files. In order to respond quickly the bot watches the uploads by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). --Leyo 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Files can be moved to Commons by other bots so watching the uploads of ^bot is not enough. But it is a good start.

I did some manual work and started my bot. But we need a better solution if we want the bot to act faster. If Fastily keeps the "ugly" files away from Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates I could ask my bot to work on that category more often untill we find a solution for all files on en-wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

deletion of Iroquois-di-suvero.jpg & File:800px-Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg

please reconsider, these wrongful deletions. these are in strict accordance with the NFCC. there can be no non-free alternative to 3D art. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you intentionally transfer Commons:File:Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg to en.wikipedia in a clumsy way? --Leyo 09:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

thank you; @leyo - well, there is no bot, as the other way. the image upload is so clunky, i'm surprised anything gets done. perhaps the elegance will increase when the upload wizard rewrite is done. what we need is an upload that lets you choose where it goes based on a dialogue. meta data is in history but there is no way to capture it from commons. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I refer to the “800px-” in the file name that normally occurs when folks transfer the preview version instead of the full size. In your case the low resolution is wanted, but probably not this ugly file name. --Leyo 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

salting

No sooner after Johnny de Brest was deleted again that it was recreated. Same old spam, from the same user, it appears. Can you delete it again, and salt it please? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. If User:BergHollywood recreates the page again, let me know and we'll remedy this with blocks, not salts. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly User:Oldus66 again

174.99.36.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) contacted me and Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) about making a file for North Carolina. Contribs are in some of the same articles Oldus66 edited. Looks like a duck... –Fredddie™ 03:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months hope that helps. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nikon 1 series

Please take a look at this page and what anonymous has done there. It is non-cooperative editor who obviously wants to prevent anyone else from editing the article. Alliumnsk (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 09:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised. You gave no reasons. 77.185.11.84 (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

PUF Closure: Footage of US RQ-170 from Iranian sources

restored from archive for (delayed) reply

Could I ask you to explain the above closure more. It seems to me that, in your closure, you make no mention of our "policy" of respecting the copyright of countries even when there are not copyright relations and so the images are PD in the US (I discuss this more fully at the PUF). The reason I ask is that your closure is being used as some sort of precedence at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 22#Template:PD-Iran in US. I think they are mistaken in this usage and are confusing law with policy and not recognising that policy can go further than law. If you closed the discussion simply because they are PD and PUF isn't the place to discuss whether their use is allowed within policy then this will obviously have quite a different meaning to if you closed the discussion meaning the images are PD and we can use them within policy. If you did intend the second sort of closure I would ask for an explanation of while you think their use is allowed given what is stated at WP:C and in the e-mail. I do not think that a PUF discussion is the appropriate venue to be having such a discussion so I think an RfC should be held - that is of course unless I've missed some previous discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes, in that PUF discussion, I was definitely only evaluating the copyright status of files in the US. The scope of WP:PUF is restricted to determining the copyright status of files and not whether a file is within policy. Your concerns are valid however, and this should be raised at WP:FFD and/or WP:RfC. At any rate, if I'm not mistaken, there is currently no policy that discusses copyright with regards to nations the US has no copyright relations with. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply to this but I've been visiting friends and family over Christmas and new year and not had a chance to reply. I believe the situation is unclear as to whether there is a policy, hence the reason I've used it in quotes when I first use it. This topic appears to be in a bit of a weird situation thanks to when it was last considered (2005). WP:C is a policy and makes reference to the fact that we should respect copyright in this situation. That said WP:C discusses legal issues and this isn't one so it's in a weird place. I also doubt there has ever been a full discussion of the issue as WP:C refers to an e-mail from Jimbo from a time when, I believe, his word was largely taken as what should be done. I also think that the position stated at WP:C is at odds with how we now treat images more generally where we use images that are PD in the US but copyrighted in their country of origin. Given all the above I think we need a discussion to clarify the situation and I plan on starting an RfC on the issue in the next couple of days. In the meantime I don't think we should be encouraging the use of such images as it will create work if the RfC decides we shouldn't use them, but at the same time I don't think we need worry about deleting existing images, even though, in my opinion, deletion of such images is justified by WP:C. Dpmuk (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete Talk:Two Envelopes Problem/sources

Please could you undelete the Two Envelopes Problem subsidiary Talk page "sources". The chronological list of all publications on this topic is a vital resource for editors of this page. For some time it had been a subsidiary page to the main article but a consensus had been reached that it should be moved out of main article space. But not deleted altogether. Richard Gill (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• This page was never deleted Bulwersator (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bulwersator, to be precise, I think that Two envelopes problem/sources has been deleted, and that this deletion automatically also destroyed Talk:Two envelopes problem/sources.

I had been trying to move the former to the latter, since the former had been up for merge or deletion for some time. The actual consensus was to move the page to a subpage of the talk page of the main article.

If that is impossible, please put a recent version of Two envelopes problem/sources back in my user space, or iNic's. Richard Gill (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the notice at Two envelopes problem/sources:

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

07:59, 3 January 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Two envelopes problem/sources" ‎ (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)

12:38, 17 August 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) moved Two envelopes problem/sources to User:INic/sandbox [without redirect] ‎ (revert)

The day before, I had moved the content of Two envelopes problem/sources to Talk:Two envelopes problem/sources, and replaced it with a redirect to the main article. Richard Gill (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we lost it. :-( iNic (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Marc Ecko

Wondering why Marc Ecko's Wikipedia page was deleted. I noticed that you listed the reason as Unambiguous advertising and promotion. However, Wikipedia:CSD G11. explains that articles written from a neutral point of view don't apply under that criterion. If indeed you believe there is bias, please restore the page so we can fix it - Marc Ecko is clearly a notable enough public figure that he should be included. Transatlanick (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Dennis.jpg, again

This file, which you've deleted twice, is back. [2] Nelsondenis248 brought this to a "request for undeletion," which is for noncontroversial requests, rather than bringing this to deletion review, and apparently the administrator who undeleted it was not aware of the history of this file. I've raised the issue on his/her talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been re-deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could comment on commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Denis_Photo-1.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Långaryd family

Why have you removed the article about the Långaryd family. It is NOT hoax. The family's is in Guinness Book of World Records in two places so it is wrong to say that the family is just a fiction. One can argue whether it is correct to call it a family by definition, but the concept is a reality.

Read more about the family at http://langarydsslakten.se/english.htm

--Magol (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg

I was wondering if you could please say why this image of a painting made by someone who died over 70 years ago was deleted? I seem to remember applying a PD Art tag when I uploaded it.Rodolph (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Single Trash.jpg

It's orphaned because I removed it from the article about the artist. The reason why I removed it from the article about the artist is because it's an invalid fair use, because it's not being used in an article about the album, and thus an f7 seems to be valid. Besides, I think it's a hoax. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Use Case Diagram

Hello. I had Use case diagram watchlisted, and IIRC, I remember other users having contributed to it. Whenever you have a minute, could you userify it at User:Mann_jess/Use_case_diagram? I'd like to see if any of it is salvageable for a new article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, no rush on this. I won't be able to get to it for another day or so anyway. So, this request is very much "at your leisure". :) Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cuthbert covercropped.jpg

Hi, I have been asked to re-examine the file you recently deleted of File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I would like to restore the image and add {{Non-free promotional}} for the missing license, which appears to have been missed as an oversight. In consideration that the book is the earliest in existence for Europe and the image is being used by the British Library trustees as part of a campaign to purchase the artefact for £9m, is there any other reason that this image was problematic that needs to be fixed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)