User talk:Fastily

WikiProject Images and Media

Hello Fastily, I have prepared an drive yesterday to get the most images moved to the Wikimedia Commons. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011. It will start at 13 years ago or more precisely at 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC). There are some awards you may get. You may sign up now. We need lots of sysops too to delete the moved images. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Could you close this Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 please? There are 9 Oppose's and 0 For's for the delisting of the article. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 11:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the rush, Calvin? You prefer the vote tally after one day of your votestacking to a month of discussion from disinterested editors? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it another 48 hours. If consensus is still unanimously in favor of not delisting the article, I'll WP:SNOW close it as such. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I would encourage you to reconsider based on the fact that no disinterested editor has yet commented, GARs usually take a month, the editors who have replied so far have all been asked to participate by the GA nominator in an obvious case of votestacking, and only one of them has put real effort into formulating an argument. This article should not be shielded from outside scrutiny merely because Calvin was quick to circle the wagons. I suppose I could engage in votestacking too if that would nullify WP:SNOW, but that doesn't seem like the proper way of going about things, so don't reward Calvin for doing the same. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it should be obvious that my vote, as the one who initiated the GAR, is to delist, so it's not unanimous. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The odds of turning the tide appear rather slim at this point; even if the GAR were to run to completion, it would inevitably achieve the same result, hence WP:SNOW. I'm going to re-evaluate in 48 hours. If consensus is strongly in favor of not-delisting, I'll close it as such. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that based on numbers or strength of argument? How loudly must I yell VOTESTACKING? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Psh, strength of arguments, obviously. In case it isn't already apparent, numerous editors have voiced opinions and refuted most, if not all of your arguments. Consensus is clearly against you in this discussion, so just accept it and do everyone a favor by refraining from making egregious accusations of foul play. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised that you would characterize any of the comments, other than perhaps Nathan's, as refutations. I have presented a cogent, good faith argument for my interpretation of GA criterion #3a as it applies to song articles. No one other than Nathan and I is making an argument for the correctness of their reading of the criteria, they are merely asserting that I am wrong and quoting the criterion instead. And it's really surprising – egregious, let's say – that you, as an administrator, would allow an obvious instance of votestacking to persuade you to make a favorable judgement on behalf of the votestacker. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 01:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Calvin999's votestacking: Jivesh boodhun, 1111tomica, Nathan, IHelpWhenICan, Novice7, Rp0211, Xwomanizerx, Ozurbanmusic, Another Believer, Ipodnano05, PancakeMistake, Spiceitup08. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

THR, you are still failing to see how everyone else is right and how you are wrong. You have made a complete and utter fool of yourself by doing this, and unlike Fastily who on my talk page said that even though you are completely wrong, you are doing it in good faith and are misguided, I disagree entirely and think that you are well aware of what you are doing (or trying, to do) and making it a personal vendetta against me to have Wait Your Turn de-listed. This GAR is absurd, and you have no clue what you are talking about. Your opinion of what an article should be DOES NOT mean it is right, which everyone has pointed out to you. And stop with this whole vote-stacking thing, everyone asks people to get involved in AfD's, GAR's etc., you are just clutching at straws trying to make yourself look better, when you are in fact achieving the complete opposite. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid attacking other users. Even if they are misguided (your opinion), still the GAR was made in good faith. If that's how THR interpreted the criterion, some other reviewers do and say misinterpreted other criteria. There's so much around GAN that you guys miss. Anyways, the votestacking didn't do any good. Its clear that the GAR is nearing consensus, but the votestacking and the inviting to close it were just disruptive. Perhaps a disinterested, and somebody not invited, should close that to forestall disagreements among you who have common goal for this project! --Efe (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm trying to say it in the most basic and simplest form because THR is still failing to understand why he is wrong. And he shouldn't be "interpreting" the criterion, he should be following it, not going by what he thinks is the criterion or his idea of it. You can't just single me out for votestacking, because everyone else does it. I never asked people to Oppose it, I asked people (who I do and don't converse, which obviously included people I don't know and have nothing to do with WP:Rihanna) to simply discuss it and place their vote. I haven't done anything wrong by that. I don't see why this GAR should last for a month like how THR wants it too, that is just ridiculous. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of terms such as "fool", not to mention the qualifier "utter", is a form of attack. Please avoid that. Thanks.--Efe (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a form of attack, it's an expression. I'd consider a form of attack to be a lot more serious than that. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack. Expression. Its the same. However severe or light that is, its still derogatory and your insulting a co-wikipedian. --Efe (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have brought this dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I'd say more than 48 hours have passed now. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you have closed this as the discussion was getting rather heated. In fact before I commented I considered closing it the same way. However on reading the article I noticed issues with prose and raised them at the GAR. I feel consensus is clear that criteria 3a is not an issue, but so far there have been no attempts to deal with the issues I have raised . Also since the two primary antagonists have started working together now and other disinterested editors are looking at it I feel it would have been better to let it run a bit longer. AIRcorn (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment further on my talkpage, where you have not yet addressed the issue I raised there. I also added to the WP:AN3 discussion, even though Ism schism seems to have calmed down since. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition I would like to hear what you say about [1] and [2]. Where another editor and another admin decided that by comments can be overwritten, even though they were most certainly accurate and neutrally worded. 15:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

AN3 is for 3RR violations and long-term edit warring; the diffs you provided in your report met neither criterion. Additionally, it was highly inappropriate to re-factor my comments. If you disagree with my closure, file the same report at WP:ANI instead inappropriately of striking/removing my words. For the record, I am only interested in your behavior, and not the behavior of others, which is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand. If there's a problem, take it up with them, or head to WP:ANI. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

From your point of view I understand why you decided to block me. So I bear you no grudge there. I would though like to argue that you misunderstand the purpose of WP:AN3. I quote from that page "Use this noticeboard to report active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." Stress is mine.

In addition, specifically regarding Ism schism, I referred you to his talkpage, where you can find a few recent edit-war warnings. Meaning that even if WP:AN3 would not be the right forum to report the incidental edit-warrior, I established that Ism schism is more than that.

Please be so kind to give me your reaction to these two points. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, I recommend you take this report to WP:ANI, where administrative action can be taken and/or sanctions/bans can be established after an extensive community review of Ism schism's actions. AN3 is not the appropriate forum for long-standing, complex disputes. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I never mentioned complex issues. I said Ism schism has a history of edit-warring. So he can be reported on AN3, as I understand it. And even without that, I don't see why an incidental edit-war can not be reported there. You have failed so far to address that question. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I already have. You are simply disregarding my explanations. I tire of repeating myself to you; unless you have something meaningful to say, this conversation is over. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I think you misunderstood the purpose of WP:AN3, and made a decision based on that understanding resulting in my block and in the lack of proper measures regarding an editor who was engaged in edit-warring. One of the expectations from admins, is that you explain yourself to editors. If I am disregarding your explanation, then it is only because I have not recognised it as such. So let me repeat my questions: 1. Is it not true that WP:AN3 is the right venue to report edit-warriors even if they have not violated the three-revert-rule? 2. Is it not true that Ism schism has recently been warned several times for edit-warring, in addition to having a longstanding history of such, and that you failed to take this into account while considering his behavior? Debresser (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Hello Fastily, can you (or someone) review my request for registration for AWB? Philosopher is asking for other admins to handle it. Miguel AG^(talk) Review me! 08:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're approved. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Fuvahmulah2.JPG

Hi Fastily - is it the uploader's limited contrib history that made you skeptical about the {{GFDL-self}} on the file? Kelly ^hi! 17:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the updates that I made to the file description page. flickr claims all rights are reserved. I will email the photographer. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I could not find the image on flickr and because most of the files in that flickr stream were copyrighted, I tagged the file as missing permission. Given the latest update, I can see that the file is clearly copyrighted. I have deleted it at such. Thanks for finding the link, Guerillero. Kelly, please exercise greater caution when reviewing files for transfer to Commons; be sure to check all aspects and details of any file before making a transfer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I was fooled by the fact that the uploader had the same username as the Flickr user. Normally those are legit. Kelly ^hi! 19:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rollback

thanks for giving me rollback. I was just wondering though, do you know some good scripts for users with rollback? Thanks, --Kangaroopowah (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If you haven't tried Huggle or Igloo, I recommend you check them out. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Hello Fast, an edit war has been started on Rebecca Black's My Moment article regarding the "reception" thingy. Can you please take care of it? Thanks ♫♪AdyNiz♪♫ 18:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to suggest the same thing since it was already semi-protected. Anyway, thanks again :) ♫♪AdyNiz♪♫ 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamnager

I have restored Islamnager as I came to set the same redirect right now. Although the original creater is banned I would feel unconfortable attributing the edit to myself as I know how it feels when an article gets deleted and later someone else recreates it. Agathoclea (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting subject. Another unrelated banned user has been involved as well. Agathoclea (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why did you do that? Articles created by banned users are subject to on-sight deletion under WP:CSD#G5. You are entitled to recreate the redirect, but there was no good reason to reverse my deletion. Please explain yourself. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleteing banned users contribution serves on major purpose. Saving us the bother to check if the contribution is valid. In particular a valid point of the second case entangled here of a serial copyright violator. I have edited the article in another incarnation quite some time ago to save a rather poor but plausible article from deletion. As it just turned out thearticle got moved to an unconventional articlename to subarticle it as a second version to the correct spelling and disambiguation of the village and then go got deleted as the poorer relation. With a number of articles having used the wrong or alternative spelling a redirect would be in order. I am in no way trying the get tc back through the backdooor but through personal experience I have a strong avertion to restoring deleted edits as my own as minor as it might seem and if I notice I do the same with WikiProject taggings if an article gets deleted and restored and the restoring admin usually forgets the talkpage. Agathoclea (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you why you restored the page, even though you knew it was inappropriate. I fail to see why you had the urge to restore the page, when the proper thing to do would have been to recreate the redirect. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it is wrong to claim someone elses work as ones own. As minor as it might be and even if the subject (hypothetically) might be a mass-murderer. Agathoclea (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. You don't can't claim someone else's work as your own by creating a redirect. Speedy deletion criterion G5 is intended as a deterrent to prevent banned users from editing Wikipedia. Please reverse your undeletion immediately before I file an ANI thread on your behavior. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

G5 was created as you can't revert a one edit article. I bring this to ANI myself as more input from the community to see if we ignore copyrights of banned people would be interresting. Agathoclea (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Point Blank

Hi, my name John O'Daniel, founding member and lead singer for the southern rock band, Point Blank. It has come to my attention that the Point Blank page has been deleted. What is needed to reinstate the page? Your help would be appreciated as this page is important to the band. Looking forward to hearing from you....Thanks68.95.145.112 (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the page in question? It's unclear what you're referring to. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he is referring to this this page that you have recently deleted. Miguel AG^(talk) 05:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Too Late the Hero (band)

Hello Fastily,

you deleted my article on the band Too Late the Hero from Berwick, Maine. Please send it to User:Goroth/Too Late the Hero (band) so I can work on it. Cheers 80.226.24.2 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you log in to edit? I need to be sure you're actually User:Goroth before userfying the article. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Blank_%28band%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.109.239 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify

File:Rhoda photo3.JPG was just tagged by you as FFD. I received no notification about it and there's no file entry for it at FFD. There was a similar file I nominated at FFD on 20 August-File:Rhoda-cast.jpg and I see that's now been deleted. I was hoping to his the PD pre-1978 file to replace the one nominated for deletion on 20 August. Thanks, We hope (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Have put it for SD. We hope (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like my template page failed to purge itself :\ The deletion nom is over here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion due to copyright.

I just created a Wiki account and I'm entirely new to this, so please excuse me if I do anything incorrectly. I'm not even sure if I'm in the right place or if this will be seen by the right person.

Having discovered that you can't post an article about yourself, I tried to have a friend who helps me with publicity do it. The article was deleted due to alleged copyright infringement The article was about me, Robert (Bobby) Martin, and was very similar to the bio information my friend put together for one of my music business web sites, thinkmethod.net, minus some of the adjectives and verbiage so that it read more like a proper encyclopedia entry. There is no copyright infringement, they are just paraphrasing there own work, all of which is approved by me. Can the Wiki page be reinstated?

I discovered also that there is an incorrect link on the Wiki Curtis Institute page. I was trained there as a classical French horn player before going on to work with numerous stars, Frank Zappa among them. The link mentions Zappa, but connects to a page about a Bobby Martin who was a jazz trumpeter born in 1903. The bad link is on the Curtis page, listed alphabetically under "Bobby Martin" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Institute_of_Music

The link on the Curtis page goes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Martin_(musician)

That "Bobby" Martin never attended Curtis.

In any case, I do approve the Wiki article that was posted about me and would like to have it reinstated, as it is not infringing on any copyrighted material. I would also like the link on the Curtis page edited to include French horn, and to go to the correct, reinstated Robert (Bobby) Martin article.

Again, sorry if I'm in the wrong place and/or not following correct protocol, I'm just trying to get a worthwhile article posted in this wonderful resource.

Thank you!

Ramusic10 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see User:Fastily/E#G12 and WP:DCP. Let me know if you still don't know what to do after reading those pages. Also, please feel free to correct any factual errors you may come across; anybody is welcome to edit Wikipedia! Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

deleted file File:Miller library colby construction.jpg

I see that you deleted the file I uploaded, Miller library colby construction.jpg. I originally listed the image as "Fair Use Image of an Existing Building", which no free replacement was available for because it an image of the building under construction in 1945. I now think that "Historically Significant Fair Use" may be a more appropriate tag - any guidance? Thanks. Nickline4 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia non-free content criterion #1, any non-free/copyrighted file which could be replaced by an existing (or easily creatable) free alternatives are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. If the photo of the building in 1945 is historically significant, then go ahead and re-upload the file. On the file's description page, explain why the image is needed to enhance a reader's understanding of the article you plan to use it in, and include the text, "{{Non-free historic image}}" somewhere in the text of that page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

...again. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I edit conflicted you for this message. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Apologies for this. Was directly under Super Over on my watch-list.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me

I'm trying to add some code on to my userpage, like this:

<div style="float: left; width: 250px; overflow: auto; height; {{{1}}}; margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; clear: both;">
{|style="background-color: RED; width: 250px; border: 1px solid #aaa;"
|{{User Wikipedian for|year=2011|month=7|day=22}}
|-
|{{UncyclopedianUser|Frosty|Red Rover112|left}}
|-
|{{User:UBX/Twinkle}}
|-
|{{User current age|year=1996|month=4|day=22}}
|-
|{{User IRC|nick=Frostee}}
|}
</div>

But I keep getting this error message saying that

overflow: auto; height;

is blacklisted. Could you either help me with this problem or suggest an alternate course of action. Cheers.

I have purposely changed the ; in height: in order to avoid the same problem. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 10:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess you have to be an admin to do it. I have updated your userpage accordingly. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 06:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hey there, please semi-protect these two articles. A few ip (unregistered users) are involved in some vandal activities related to these articles. Even after giving them a couple warnings, they're still not ready to listen. So, semi-protecting them will be a wise decision. Thank you ♫♪AdyNiz♪♫ 13:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Users warned. If they vandalize again, report to WP:AIV or my talk page. If disruption from different IP addresses starts up that those pages, let me know and I'll protect the pages. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect KOjikan wiki page

Kodomo_no_Jikan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, HjMitchell ask me to report you here.

i'm asking to unlock the page of Kodomo_no_jikan manga to correct a improper terminology. Moderator block the page as vandalism but is not true, i've source to prove my statement (see below), also the moderator link a blog as a weak proof, not official websites where manga and anime are reviewed. Lolicon is a term that describe a behaviour in Japan and is not a genre of manga and anime. In Japan the genre lolicon don't exist. These also are correct tags used to this manga on MAL [3] and ANN [4]. ANN and MAL aren't random blogs but official and popular anime websites among the entire international fandom community. I want only ADD these TAGS to correct the mistake in the kodomo_no_Jikan manga page but the moderator don't allow me to fix it and i don't get the big issue here. Also this manga is published in Comic high, a seinen magazine free for all in Japan. Lolicon terminology is always used in the west but is a internet meme to classify some mangas and not a main genre at all used ufficially on publications. Another and third proof about the tags are posted directly to the moderator in the discussion board, that show how he is wrong about specific genres, anime and manga im general [5], this link stated that lolicon is not a genre but a theme used to identify better a product. Thanks.

Protection is scheduled to expire within 48 hours; you may edit the page then. If it is urgent that a correction be made to the article, request that on the article's talk page, and include the text "{{Edit semi-protected}}" somewhere in your request. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not urgent. But the moderator will undo the change and lock again, i'm not a high rank user. You should ask him to stop deleting my updates because i provide source and reliable facts from the official community. Hope he understand my point.

Could you name the mod in question? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is named Farix 87.11.242.238 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rory-read.jpg

Hi,

It seem you deleted my file "File:Rory-read.jpg" because the Fair Use claim was not appropriate (F7, reason #1, uncorrect fair use claim). But I provided the correct Fair Use claim (photograph of a living person) and I provided a reason (I didn't find a free picture of him and he is only "famous" now so it's unlikely we'll get a free pic soon). I'm sure it's just a mistake, can you roll back the change or can I reupload one  ?

Thank you,

--Jertonit (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#F7 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your block action was overided

User 08OceanBeach SD was blocked by you [6]. He then filled an unblock request and it was denied by administrator Salvio giuliano who endorsed your reasons to block him for the second time. User then filled another unblock request (using the same template) arguing that "he understands now the 3RR" and saying he was not gambling with the system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this time adminsitrator Jpgordon accepted the request. I believe (but I'm unsure) that you can't appeal an unblock for the second time, but directly to the administrator that blocked you, as you suggested to OceanBeach by administrator Salvio giuliano.

Accordingly with WP, once a block is reviewed, endorsed and the unblock request denied by another administrator different than the sanctioning administrator, another one "should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy)".

In my opinion administrator Jpgordon is missing out very valuable information (2nd. block [7], 1st. block^[8]), such as the fact that 08OceanBeach SD has been blocked in the past for the same reason (and dismissing the opinion of other users involved in a talk) and that he aknowledged the 3RR and edit-warring policy very well. In simple words, he was already well aware of these policies but this time he went further and tried to gamble with the system by returning to edit-war past the 24 hour period. This was the main reason that you, the first reviewing administrator, denied his unblock request and endorsed Fastily's 1 week block.

I think this is important and that's why I'm asking you to take notice of this and re-apply the block if necessary, if this unblock was illegally or poorly lifted. In my experience user 08OceanBeach SD is a hard-line editor who is never willing to take other users' opinions, unless there's a bunch of them agaist (and not always, as proved in the first block request weeks ago). Thanks. KarniFro^{( Talk to me)} 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to this, Fastily. So: what's the point of having unblock requests at all? Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative; and if the editor in question turns out not to be acting in good faith, then re-block his ass. I felt that the request was well-stated and believable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and, for Karnifro's benefit -- yes, blocked users can request unblock more than once. That's why we don't cut off their talk page access. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging

Your tagging of those three images is inappropriate. The source is given - City of Sydney archives - with an identification number. If you think that's insufficient, then you are welcome to add more information, but it is completely inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion for "no source provided" when the source is provided. If you continue, your editing may be viewed as disruptive. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Gimmetoo#No_source_tags -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there are reason you are edit-warring to add {{di-no source}} tags to images which have sources provided? Do you accept that that is a blockable offense? Please fix whatever problem you perceive rather than edit-warring to add disruptive tags. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop whining and link the sources you claim to have found. It's not that difficult. I'll have no problems with your removal of the no source tags once you have provided the requested source information. I hope you're not edit-warring with me for the sake of edit-warring. Copyright and attribution is no joking matter. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You are advised to avoid personal attacks. The sources are provided and have been provided, and your edit-warring to tag them despite that is WP:DISRUPTive. You are welcome to fix the images however you personally think they should be, but again, tagging an image for deletion is no joking matter, and should not be done for blatantly inappropriate reasons. How do you intend to proceed? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? Funny, I don't recall attacking anyone. I would source the image myself if I knew what the source was. However, I found no such images at the link you referenced. If you can fix the problem, then fix it instead of whining about alleged disruptive tagging and edit-warring. It's utterly irrational for you to make this into such a big deal and quite frankly I find it astonishing that you're a sysop. The way I see it, I'm not the one who's disrupting here. Bottom line - add the source info and we'll have no further problems. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The source information is in the article. If that's too difficult, I provided detailed instructions in the edit summary. If you cannot follow those instructions, then you have the problem. Furthermore, I see nothing in Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Requirements that requires links specifically rather than other ways of identifying the source. As such, a "link" is your personal requirement and not obligatory. Again, you have repeatedly tagged an image with {{di-no source}} when a source is provided in the article and additional details have been provided to you, and you refuse to fix the problem yourself. That seems "utterly irrational" to me. Do you really consider that appropriate? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In spite of the given source information, I have not been able to find the images at Sydney archives, or on Google. Although the images look old, there is no way to be sure without a relevant source a)where the image was taken and b)how old the image is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's weird. I verified that I could get to the source of each image when I added the source info to the description page. I wonder if there is a browser compatibility issue with the archive search pages. I'm using Firefox 6.0 Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gimmetoo that edit warring over no-source tags when the source was provided is a Bad Thing. Nothing says that URLs are mandatory for sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well. What's the problem Fastily? It could have been as simple as "Sydney Archives" and a phone number and all requirements would have been met. There's no need to be difficult just to be difficult. Buffs (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say URLs were a necessity? The problem we were having was with a lack of a verifiable source. However, from what I can see above, this issue appears to have been resolved. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stop whining and link the sources you claim to have found." seems to necessitate a URL...where are we wrong? Buffs (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to post that same quote. (ETA: And this one, come to think of it.) "City of Sydney Archives" + catalog number is as WP:Verifiable as you need to get, unless there's some reason to think the ref was faked -- which it clearly wasn't. I think this would be good time to say "Sorry, I was wrong." instead of just saying "Well, looks like the issue is resolved."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it was quite reasonable for Fastily to ask for a better way to verify the info. Gimmetoo found a path to the source as requested but didn't add it to the file info. I verified then added that info to the images at question. I agree that we don't necessarily need urls but it sure does make things easier to verify if we have them. All images on wiki came from someplace. It should be trivial for the uploader to say where, url, scanned image from somewhere, something useable to verify stuff. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unintended meanings are being drawn from my words and I find that awfully offensive =( I consider both you SarekOfVulcan, and Buffs respectable editors, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. The point of the ANI thread was to obtain the source information I was unable to retrieve. Since that's been done, I'm not sure why this discussion continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fastily. You have new messages at TheFarix's talk page.
Message added 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Farix (t | c) 02:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children

I followed the links on your talk page which lead me to the explanation of A10. I am still writing this note however, because I simply disagree. The article that I created is not a duplicate, it merely refers to the Jefferson DNA analysis at the start. Most of the article (about 75% I would say, after some necessary introduction) is concerned with the opinions and behavior of various historians over the last 200 years, something which is not at all discussed in Jefferson DNA Data. We did explain this on the talk page. I do not at all understand how you can read these two articles and consider them to be duplicates. KarlFrei (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Flash Mob edits

Apologies. Debate now on the discussion page.76.175.193.153 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)