User talk:Fastily

Larry Bock

Dear Fastily, Mr Larry Bock got UC Berkeley to take down the page in question http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/pagrp/LarryBockinfo.html i respectfully request you restore my page on Larry Bock biography for i am not in any violation of Wikipedia rules thank you (frank 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank.diaz1994 (talk • contribs)

Access to a deleted page

Hi, I understand that you had to delete Zwinky because it was written like an advertisement. My students in the Online Communities class at Cornell University edited this page for a course project. I would like to see what were the contents of the page before it was deleted so I could evaluate their work. Is it possible provide me with access to the contents of the article? I am not contesting the deletion. Thank you. LeshedInstructor (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You deleted an article on "Conscious Business", which was not written by me, but is an important topic in the subject of business sustainability, green business, etc. It really should be included in Wikipedia. I linked to the page from my website, as I do with other topics, to educate viewers on such related topics. This is the purpose of Wikipedia isn't it? I cannot reference the article now, but I don't remember it being an advertisement, unless it referred viewers to the writer's business in the credits? If so, just delete the business referral, not the content. I work this new field of Conscious Business and encourage the widely recognized subject to be included in Wikipedia. Shall I write an article to replace it?

Rusty Elrod HorizonPath Corp. relrod@horizonpath.net 404-502-8853 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.197.28 (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No page ever existed at Conscious Business. Are you sure that is the correct title? And please, by all means, feel free to start a new article on this subject matter. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the page existed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_business. Is it possible to recover the original text as reference for a new article, or can it be reinstated with revisions? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.211.235 (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Redirects Per WP:CAT and WP:REDIRECT, it is fine and appropriate to categorize redirects. You need to immediately stop removing their categories and revert yourself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait You've even removed redirect categories such as Category:Redirects to sections and Category:Redirects from songs--these are specifically created for redirects. What are you doing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And look at this What was this? I can't imagine what you're doing here. Please respond as soon as possible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry To keep on posting here, but I just looked at your contributions and this is a cause for concern. I have posted to WP:AN and you should probably keep all the discussion there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. It was a semi-automated script I wrote to remove non-category content from redirect pages. Obviously, it has some problems. I halted its execution roughly an hour before you started posting to investigate the issues so I'm not exactly sure why you're acting as if it's still running... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay Please keep this all at WP:AN--what is the purpose of splitting it up? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you authorized to run a bot? If not, you should be reviewing and approving each edit made by your script. You are responsible for every edit made by a script that you choose to run.--Srleffler (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: These edits were not NOT performed by a bot. I was testing a semi-automated (i.e. user assisted) tool I wrote myself. Obviously, there are some problems with it. Presently, I have self-reverted all the edits I made using this tool. If I missed anything, you do not need my permission to revert the edit. Please do not continue to leave me messages about a 'broken bot'. I am aware of the issues at hand and am working to fix them. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, editing at a rate of 47 edits per minute [1] is not semi-automated, it is a bot. Please seek bot approval if you want to edit at such a rate. –xeno^talk 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

After you fix the script, are you planning to continue its execution? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Function What is the script's purpose? Do you have the code to share? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the situation, it appears that Fastily was trying out a script that removes categories that don't exist from articles, i.e. if Category:Batman fight scene reenactments involving yodeling were in an article, the script would take it out but leave Category:Batman, which does exist, in place. However two things went wrong. First, it would appear that the script is not yet able to determine existing categories from non-existent ones, and secondly, the throttle appears to have broken. Keep in mind that the script was only running for 15 minutes before it was stopped. Had the throttle been working, we'd be dealing with 90 edits. What is important here is that Fastily realized before anyone else that something was wrong, and reversed the damage. I do agree with the whoever posted in AN thread, however, that in the future this probably should be a task for Fbot. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on Fastily's description above, I think the purpose of this script is to remove content hidden by redirects (except for categories). I wonder why you're not continuing it? If it must be done slowly, so be it. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street image AFD closed as No Consensus

Really? I am gonna need an explanation for that. As the closing admin, could you clarify exactly how you came to that conclusion? It appears to have formed a consensus to keep.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[2]. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That really didn't explain how you saw that as no consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a moment to clarify to me how you determined it to be "No consensus"? Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

G4

Just a note, before deleting a page (such as List of important publications in biology) under G4, please be sure to check the deletion log; it may have been restored rather than recreated. In this case, it could have been deduced from the deletion log that the correct thing to do would have been to move it back to the incubator. Cheers, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. I'll keep that in mind. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A wee request for assistance

Hi Fastily,

This is a minor niggle, but it's been bugging me... I recently encountered the article Tongue drums and thought to move it to Tongue drum. That page already exists (it was an empty page), so I made it into a redirect instead, but now I'm frustrated - the page title should definitely be "Tongue drum", per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Any chance you could delete Tongue drum under G6, move Tongue drums there instead and create a redirect from the plural to the singular when you have the time?

Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted " Tongue drum". Go ahead and move the page when you're ready. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for doing that. I shall sleep easier tonight knowing that Wikipedia's Tongue drum article is correctly named. The really tragic thing is, I actually will...Yunshui (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

y did u delete my page-awesome truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Daykin (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G4 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You should really be a bit more careful...

Plip!

...with speedy deletion- in this case, User:JakeInJoisey. You deleted this user page as G8 when it a.) had previous versions to revert to and b.) a short check of the history showed that it was only a typo by the editing user. Remember to check the history when deleting stuff, otherwise you will sooner or later allow vandals to use you to delete valid but vandalized entries. Regards SoWhy 17:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I forgot to detag that thing I moved into userspace. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Another overly hasty speedy deletion

You speedy deleted Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh on the grounds that it duplicated the Jackson Walsh article. It did not duplicate that article, and you deleted it without giving me a chance to discuss it. If anything, it should have been listed for a deletion discussion: its structure was based on the article John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, which survived a similar deletion attempt although both characters have their own stand-alone articles as well. Although Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh was just at the beginning stage (I only created it a few hours ago), the article was well-sourced and as encyclopedic as any of the others in the List of fictional supercouples. I'm asking you to reinstate it and list it for deletion if you still think it shouldn't be here. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, A10 was not even an appropriate criterion for speedying this article; for A10 to apply the article must duplicate an existing topic and not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article on the subject, and have a title that is not a plausible redirect. And articles that expand or reorganise an existing ones or that contain referenced, mergeable material should not be deleted under A10. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you.

Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article.

I do not think it is fair that you bring up otherstuff - but if you want to talk about those - a very reputable source discusses John-Paul and Craig as being a supercouple - and there is sources to support that their storyline was partially responsible for a rise in Hollyoaks ratings - which means outsiders came to view the show for those characters. Whether or not that article should have a stand alone article is another story and could be discussed further elsewhere. The list you are refering to that does have links to seperate articles - however they are to do with american soap operas and document such couples dates over the last few decades - where there was a real phenomena in the US to do with supercouples - so some of the articles are justified by the all of the hype they saw during the ratings boom in soap operas. These days they are generally less viewed shows, still popular but they do not experience the same hype and media following - so what these newly created soap opera articles are up against is that there isn't enough weight or notability for a dual articles in addition to the ones that exist. As a result many are deleted via AFD with little support for a keep in light of sourcing and the fact they already have other articles that document every said thing. So I hope that helps explain the reasoning a little better, and it is great that you are keen to edit fictional character articles.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, first, why are you responding here? I've asked Fastily to reinstate the article and give it a chance to have a proper deletion discussion. I don't really want to do it all here; it deserves a proper chance to stand on its merits. Briefly, however, it's far better to split long information into a different article. The Jackson character may be gone, but Aaron is a long-running and continuing character. There's no reason not to split this info. Second, it's far better to have information in one article than three. If we have reception and storyline in both Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh, that's a problem, and so is only having it at one of those two articles. Third, there is ample evidence to support a following outside the serial--you and Fastily didn't give me a chance to provide it. Plus, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to speedy delete an hours-old article. Finally, there are sources to support the claim that the Aaron/Jackson storyline was partially responsible for a rise in Emmerdale ratings, just as you claim for Hollyoaks--and I gave at least one. Anyway, as I said, I posted here because I want a response from the person who deleted the article. I'm still waiting. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse Raintheone's summary. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's really not good enough, Fastily. You haven't responded to any of the points regarding your overly hasty speedy deletion: most importantly, I've asserted that your speedy deletion wasn't within the acceptable criteria, and that the deletion reason you chose wasn't appropriate. I don't intend to start a wheel war so I'm not going to undelete, however I do intend to recreate the article, which is still open in my browser. Please list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still believe it should be deleted. There's no reason why we can't wait a few days for other users to have their say. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, he recreated the article again. He quoted whole paragraphs of prose left, right and center (Aside from the quote boxes) - using two non free images - using youtube videos as sources and dressing them up as viable ones. Copyvio heaven. Overides an decision made by an admin. I'm not sure if there can be any excuses either - EB's been editing since 2004.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If the images are non-free I'll remove them, but they should be removed from the original articles as well. However, I don't see any copyvios. If you do, then you should point them out or remove them yourself. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, Raintheone is right: although I didn't undelete the article, I shouldn't have recreated it either. I have therefore deleted it, and have instead requested a deletion review, which can be found here. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful...

...and leave my sandbox alone.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2011; 19:18 (UTC)

Um...what are you doing with a broken redirect in your userspace? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I, obviously, have my reasons. What are you doing deleting my sandbox again, despite my edit summary explicitly asking to leave it be? Good thing I can undelete it myself; a regular user would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to have it undeleted, and it's not like there aren't previous revisions in that sandbox's history I wouldn't need to come back to one day... How did you find it even? It doesn't end up in any of the maintenance cats, as far as I can tell. If it does, please let me know where; I sure don't want to have to undelete it on the daily basis...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2011; 19:25 (UTC)

User:Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot/SkippedRedirects, [3]. Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects. In case you didn't know, broken redirects (i.e. red-linked redirects) are subject to speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G8. There. I answered your question, so answer mine. Why do you have a broken redirect in your userspace? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely you meant "please answer mine"? :) I wish those tools were smart enough to exclude the sandboxes... sigh.

I use my sandbox as a preload template for when I need to create batches of redirects—it speeds up the process. Having a valid redirect in the sandbox would populate the newly created with whatever the target of that redirect is, which, of course, is of no help at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2011; 19:44 (UTC)

Pre-load template? Could you explain what you mean by that? Do you use a userscript/bot to mass-create redirects or are you manually creating redirects (via copy+paste)? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have neither time nor desire to explain every technical thing; go poke around the documentation on meta if you are really interested. To answer the other part of your question, no, I don't use any automated tools; everything I do is manual. At any rate, the only thing that's important here is remembering that even when a page obviously meets a CSD criteria, it still helps to think whether acting on it makes sense or not. Deleting a user's sandbox (thus making a bunch of its older revisions unavailable to a non-admin user) is just not cool; doing it twice in a row despite being asked not to is just obnoxious. My sandbox is not disrupting anything, and I can't help that the database reports aren't smart enough to distinguish a genuine problem from a user's sandbox set up a certain way for a reason. Please just ignore my sandbox next time you see it. I certainly am not planning to keep that broken redirect there forever; as soon as I am done, it will be replaced with something else. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2011; 20:00 (UTC)

There's no need to get defensive. I only asked you a few simple questions, which, for the most part, you have ignored. Since you indicated you create redirects manually, I'm assuming you copy and paste. That said, I'll make a few changes to your sandbox to prevent the redirect from showing up to the system as broken while still allowing you access to the page as a 'pre-load template' -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

People tend to get defensive when one asks questions in a commanding tone and omits "please". As for the change to the sandbox, I had to revert it, because the nowiki/code tags are not stripped out when the page is preloaded. I have, however, placed the redirect between the includeonly tags, which should hide the page from the database maintenance scripts. Unless those scripts are too smart for their own good, that should resolve the problem; if not, I'll try something else. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2011; 20:17 (UTC)

redlinked talkpage

Hi, I might have messed up nominating that page for housekeeping - all I wanted to do was to get rid of the comments page/to do page but we appear to have lost the whole talkpage? Peter Nygård - Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily - sorry about that, regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

All good. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi there. Regarding this revert of yours. I thought I'd fill you in on the full picture. The user that uploaded the image also created the article Jason 'Jonty' Rhodes, which was deleted under WP:CSD#G12. The content of the article had been cut-and-pasted from Jason Rhodes' own Facebook page. If you look at the photos on the Facebook page, and the image uploaded by the user then you'll see that the uploaded file is a cut-and-paste of this Facebook image (all rights of which are reserved by Facebook). Examining the history of the uploaded image also shows that it was tagged for WP:CSD#F4, but that tag was removed by the uploader. It's obviously yet another copyvio by the same user. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It'd be lovely if you could leave an edit history explaining the rational instead of just r. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert? It was not a revert. It was a decline of your speedy (files tagged as non-free are never eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#F9) and the addition of a proper deletion tag. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your mistake

You deleted Time in Portugal, saying A10 "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Time_zones"

But the article had content that is not in the article "Time_zones" as I wrote in the talk page, contesting the deletion proposal. TZ master (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I responded on that page, no it did not. The representation was different, but the information was the same.

Additionally, you are creating a large number of pages by copying and pasting from Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world - please stop. While ones like the more in depth article for the UK is one thing, copying and pasting one or two lines to create an article isn't helpful, duplicates existing content and loses all attribution history that's contained in the original. ALL the copy/pastes need to be deleted. If you wish to create such, the Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world article should be SPLIT so not to lose the contributor information. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fastily, you may wish to be aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_numerous_new_pages_being_created_by_copy.2Fpaste_from_another Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fastily, I've dug through TZ master's older contributions, and I see what he's trying to do. I'd also support an undeletion so he can continue to expand the article. I've already suggested he do only a few at a time and use the underconstruction tag to alleviate such issues (as mentioned on AN/I) in the future. Thanks ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this Rob. I looked at the ANI link you provided, but it looks like the problems are being resolved. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

@Rob "As I responded on that page, no it did not. The representation was different, but the information was the same." Then go and tell where on the page time zones one can find the tz database zones for Portugal. TZ master (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You Second Mistake

Why was my page List of Lebanese people in Switzerland deleted? The entry on the last is a Swiss citizen of Lebanese ancestry. if you look at the Lits of Lebenanese people, this person was part of a national series on the diaspora. I need to repost this list back on the site immediately.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G11 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

help to understand image use

I wonder if you could please take a look at this deletion and tell me what I messed up or if it might be an oversight. I want to figure out how to get the justification right so i'm not wasting my time chasing down great images that might be objectionable. The picture is of an important turn of the century planner so there will not be a lot of other images that are out there. Seems like you're busy from what I read so I understand if you don't have time - thanks much. Teda13 (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Greg Wyshynski

Hey there,

Unbeknownst to me until now, you deleted my Wikipedia entry:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Greg-Wyshynski/120178294695066?sk=wiki

I wanted to reach out and find out why, and if it could be restored. I think it was some kind of notability thing. I'm the editor of Puck Daddy blog on Yahoo! Sports, considered the preeminent hockey blog on the web. I'm a published author, have appeared on the Hockey News people of power list and I'm rather terrible at tooting my own horn so I'll stop now.

Thanks. Email is puckdaddyblog@yahoo.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.46.151 (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#PROD -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Latest stable software release/0irc

• Template:Latest stable software release/0irc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template talk:Latest stable software release/0irc (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)

Please restore this template and its talk page. For some background, see this recent TfD. Some of the links in the section at the top of my talk page and this TfD will go back even further to where some of the edit warring began. The larger issue is quite messy and got started several years ago. Even though the original people who engaged in meatpuppetry and initiated the edit warring have long since been sanctioned and abandoned the accounts they were using at the time, the edit warring has continued. I don't want to overwhelm you here with too much information and links, so if you need any additional background let me know and I'll see if I can provide additional links. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and restore them then. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the admin bit so I can't restore it myself. (Although if I would have had the bit, I'd have still asked you first to avoid even the remote possibility that someone might consider it wheel warring ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My Return

Hey Fastily, I just returned to active editing. I know my break will hurt my admin chances, however I would like to continue Admin coaching if you are not to busy.--SKATER ^Hmm? 13:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) As for admin coaching, well, I would prefer that we wait a few months before resuming. It's been awhile since you've edited and a number of rules/policies/community members have changed. In this time, get re-aquainted with the community, and continue building your editing history. Come back in say, January with consistent editing for the past few months and we'll talk. Does that seem reasonable? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Range block

Would you mind modifying this to block the /18 for some time? I apparently miscalculated the original range.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Already done by Master of Puppets -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Stephen Palmquist

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Stephen Palmquist. 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. Dao4Andrej (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarongarza95

Hi Fastily, I noticed you deleted the hoax pages on the West African Tusked Horse. Please see also this SPI I have opened for the author. What I'm wondering about is why there's a "closed" note on the SPI page when it has not even been listed at the main SPI site and when I am the only editor and did not put up any admin templates. Regards, De728631 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: HelloAnnyong has now officially "re-opened" that case. No idea why the page was created as closed in the first place. De728631 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll look into it. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

List of All My Children miscellaneous characters

That article was re-created without their consideration for your approval. Right now, I have tagged the article for copyright infringements, and the infringed content should be blocked right now, unless Marist2015, the creator of reborn article, would revert my edits. --Gh87 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-deleted and user warned. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Francisco San Martin From Days of our Lives???

why this is an Actor on the Soap Opera Days of Our Lives who was written up NUMEROUS times in 3rd party articles? has IMBD has been in Soap Opera Digest and several other articles and you note that he is not NOTABLE? PLEASE explain? (Starpreneurgoddess (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)).

Link the page in question. It's unclear what you're referring to. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Barek. Starpreneurgoddess, please see User:Fastily/E#PROD -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Req. for userfy

Can you userfy Grammarly and Talk:Grammarly under User:Lexein? Thanks. I was freaking out over "who added the redlink to the table in Plagiarism detection?". Then the penny dropped. --Lexein (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done at User:Lexin/Grammarly. I didn't do the talk page because it consisted of some test edits/borderline vandalism...that is, unless you want it :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

COMPLAINTS ONLY

WILL YOU STOP DELETING SO MANY PAGES AND START MARKING PAGES OR FIX IT YOURSELF? REALLY YOU ARE ANNOYING ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dssis1 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh. No. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Page on Kiran Bedi was locked by you.

I had added a well sourced info about "kiran bedi" about her recent award. A few users are meaninglessly removing this content. Please suggest.

Same is true with Pranab Mukherjee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.193.231 (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither page is currently protected/locked. Not sure why you're messaging me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please advise

I find it slightly suspicious that Moriori made a comment here, considering the combination of:

a) The last time he participated in a FAC before this was 4 April 2006, and before that 29 September 2004. Those are the only ones he participated in, ever, as far as I can tell.

b) It was the first thing he touched after an eight hour break from editing.

c) I made a comment that the FAC nominator was someone I got along well with.

b) I recently very publicly put my foot down and told him to back off from engaging with JamesAlan1986.

Am I being paranoid, or does this look like the beginning of a stalking situation? I don't believe in coincidences of this size, but at the same time I don't want to start a fight over one, all be it difficult to explain away, incident. Please advise. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your mistake on CSD A10 of UTC+01:30

Namibia is covered in UTC+01:30 but not in South African Standard Time. Wikipedia:CSD#A10: "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information..." It fails, your deletion is a violation of CSD. Go and restore immediately. TZ master (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to be a bit nasty to someone in your requests, make the immediate assumption that your request will not ever be actioned. Besides, there's a WP:DRV already opened on this, isn't there? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he is frustrated because one admin restored it after also deleting it under A10, and then it was deleted again by a different admin. I've not seen the page itself, but might it be better off instead merged and redirected to a section of the other article if it largely dupliates it? --Tothwolf (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but aggressive, non-AGF, and ordering people around certainly doesn't go far. "Go and restore immediately"...seriously? If you ever get to the point where you actually click "SUBMIT" on a statement like the above, it's time to logout and go do something in real life for awhile (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

TZ split the one time zone article into dozens of smaller, infinitely less useful articles. The whole thing was a bad move if you ask me. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He made a mistake on UTC+01:30 and should fix it ASAP. Namibia is not covered in South African Standard Time - this is content that did not exist in WP and I did provide it to WP. TZ master (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Attention: User:Bwilkins is known to support deletions that violate A10, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_20#Time_in_Portugal. TZ master (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A few things. 1) your being a dick stop it. 2)you aren't that important. 3)There is a pile of UTC +/- X:XX CSDs on your talk page. Normally thats a hint that there could be an issue. Please take it.--Guerillero | My Talk 12:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)