User talk:Fastily

Deletion review for Steven Crowder

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steven Crowder. 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. 5minutes (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I am sad about the Wes Cowan deletion

I saw the History Detectives show on PBS, and wanted to find out where Wes Cowan was from. I started at Wikipedia, but his article was deleted. Fortunately, IMDB had his bio. I don't know why he got deleted, and I'm sure you meant well, and I am a nobody, but I think he may deserve to be reinstated. He's been on a bunch of episodes, and it seems like any time I want to find an obscure comic book character that appeared once or twice, I can find them on wikipedia. This was the first time I tried to find someone when they didn't show up. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.11.66 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you were disappointed the article had been deleted. Although he may be a public figure, it appears Mr. Cowan did not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, essentially our benchmark for topical inclusion. Sorry, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lola bunny...png

I tagged this file for speedy deletion as F6, but then noticed that that only referred to files with boilerplate fair-use tags. I then re-tagged it as F9, since the claim of "I (user_name) created this entirely by myself" was blatantly incorrect, as the image was of Time Warner's Lola Bunny. I'm now uncertain as to whether that applies either, as I don't know if it was copied from anywhere. So what would you suggest? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. You were right to tag the file for deletion under F9. Lola bunny is a trademark and/or copyrighted character of Warner Brothers. Regardless of whether the user drew this image themselves (In which Lola bunny would still be under copyright as a derivative), found it on a website, or scanned it from an offline source, a copyright violation, broadly defined, exists on Wikipedia when a user claims someone else's work as their own, or when a copyrighted/non-free file is uploaded under a free license. In this case, both these conditions have been met and a copyvio exists. Hope that helps to clarify things. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That does help clarify things! I don't really do image work, but I saw the file and knew it needed to be dealt with. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Media Diversity Institute page

I'd appreciate some guidance as to why you consider this article to be unambiguous advertising. It is an accurate description of the organisation and its work, complete with references where these exist. Moreover, the MDI or MDI projects are referenced in other Wikipedia articles - for example the link if the the article on the International Federation of Journalists references the Institute for Media Diversity (actually the same organisation) and links to a joint IFJ-MDI project, Media 4 Diversity, http://www.media4diversity.eu/.

If you can indicate sections of the article that you conclude are unambiguous advertising, I will be happy to consdier rewriting or removing them. But I have been very careful not to include any normative statements in the article. It describes the background to the MDI, its history, its aims and what it does.

I can find no sources for criticism of the organisation but would be happy to include any that you can direct me to.

Gherman317 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Gherman317#Re:Deletion_of_Media_Diversity_Institute_page -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lady Gaga - You & I.ogg

Fastily, can you please restore the above file, seeing that its rationale passes now? Also I have developed it, in my sandbox here, which has a detailed analysis of the sample. Regards, — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Turn the article live and I'll restore it for you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, the sandbox article has been merged live with the main one. Can you please restore the sample? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you dear. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case / vandalism on Ottoman/Algiers related articles

Hello,

I wonder if, as you did for some previous articles, if it is possible to make a semi-protection on some other vandalized articles : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] :s :s

I know that there are too many articles, but that seems to be the only way to stop this guy...

Regards,
--Omar-Toons (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not particularly apt on semi-protecting that many articles, because it also prevents good-faith contributors from making useful edits. Tell you what, report any sockpuppets (both IPs and usernames) to my talk page, and if the behavior matches, I'll block them, no further questions. How does that sound? On a side note, would you find the rollback tool helpful in reverting this vandal? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the answer :)

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, thanks for blocking Anton Abele so some sensible discussions can be held instead. Could you if you have the time please check out user ENCRYPTMATRON IP for any connection with previously blocked vandals. I having a gut feeling that the user has some connection to previous vandalism of some kind. You find the user on the Anton Abele article edits. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Am looking into it, noticed it on another user's talk page. Amalthea 21:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Undrinkable Water

Why did you delete that article called Undrinkable water? I was going to use that article for a link for the section, "See also" in the article named, "Drinking water"

Eric567 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That was explained here. Let me know if you have any specific questions. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

The page was deleted again. However, the recreated page included several improvements to the sources and general editing to Wikify the article a bit better. Crowder has sufficient acting credits to qualify as a notable person, and one would think that his widely recognized political punditry would add to that. Exactly what needs to happen for this page to be left alone? 5minutes (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The page was originally deleted at WP:AFD via community consensus. You may request that the community's decision be reversed at WP:DR. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the community consensus, at least in the talk area, was that the page should have stayed put and been improved. I'm not asking for a dispute resolution - I am asking you to identify what specifically was wrong with the page you deleted in terms of notability, sources, etc. 5minutes (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant WP:DRV. If there are a number of users who agree with you, the original decision to delete the page will be easily overturned. Please start a formal request. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Gewis

You recently deleted a redirect, Gewis, because it pointed to a User page. This was only the case because the User in question had changed it a few hours earlier. Prior to that it was a legitimate redirect, and should have been reverted, rather than being deleted. It's page history and discussion must be preserved as part of a merge, so please restore it. Agricolae (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it has been taken care of. Thanks for letting me know. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Reasoning Bert Mizusawa

You deleted the deletion discussion for this page and failed to state your reasoning for deleting. The reasons the page was deleted previously are not longer relevant. You should read the deletion discussion with the original deleter and comparet the new and old articles before you delete. You did not even open the floor up to debate. What is your reasoning behind deleting this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missclark (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks quite relevant to me. You may request that the AfD decision be overturned at WP:DRV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I did. Thank you! Missclark (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait...are you saying the deletion discussion is relevant? Or rather the page is relevant? Assuming the former, from what I could tell back in June of 2010 (not 2011 so over a year ago). It looks like during this time it was deleted due to WP:COI because the individual was running for political office; but even at that time he would have been WP:N for WP:MILPEOPLE. He is not running for political office, and has received additional awards since that time. Why is it not WP:N? Thank you. Missclark (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dignity Therapy

Fastily,

I'm not clear why you deleted the post on "Dignity Therapy". It's a specific form of therapy for patients with Advanced/Terminal cancer, and has been validated and published in multiple peer reviewed journals, including the Journal of the Amererican Medical Association (JAMA). I provided 10 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedwardspharmd (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Burra Record

Hello Fastily, I would like to query why you deleted the page Burra Record for copyright infringement when the discussion page of the article showed that the copyright holder had given permission for the text to be used. I had followed the process explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The copyright holder of http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=2616 is the State Library of South Australia and I am a librarian there. Kind regards Joannalibrarian (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Bobby Kimmel

You had previously deleted a picture of Bobby Kimmel - which I had uploaded with vague license info. I have since contacted the subject through their website and have received written permission to post the graphic under the CC Free Use with attribution license. I tried to re-upload the graphic, but it seems to be blocked. BobbyKimmel.jpg

Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of: Tiger IT Bangladesh Limited Page

Hi, The company information (of Tiger IT Bangladesh Limited) that was added was done in neutral way stating the facts. Please let us know what changes you require for the page to exist. It's is the pioneer in the field of biometrics application in Bangladesh, and till today this is the only Bangladeshi company to accomplish that. This is a noteworthy achievement for a software company in our country. More importantly, many of its competitors have their entry in Wikipedia, whereas, Tiger IT ranks number one in competition. All claims about rankings were provided with detailed and accurate references for verification as well. This is also the company that had a historic contribution in running the country's first software based voter registration system in 2007-2008. A company that performed AFIS matching in 80 million records is very rare and had the largest database of this kind at the time of this achievement (in 2008). These are milestones set by not just a company, but a country.

Furthermore, if I.R.I.S. corporation can have their entry, we must allow Tiger IT's article to be here as well. Not to mention, Tiger IT's competitors NEC, SAGEM, CogentCogent Inc., also have their Wikipedia entries. Please rather share with me how we can make this article better, or if you need to see sources of all the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeway360i (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)