User talk:Fastily

File:Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei flag.jpg

I tagged this for G6 as it was commons showing thru IIRC.

The uploader seems concerned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#File:Deutsche_Zeppelin_Reederei_flag.jpg

As you are more experienced I would appreciate you smoothing things over with them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user apparently seems to have understood why the page was tagged for deletion. Looks like you did a good job explaining it to them. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koudelka Prague

The warning (Dec 13), my response (Dec 16), your deletion (Dec 21)...

I know it was a long time ago, but do you have any idea how this happened? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the file was orphaned again not long after you de-orphaned it. If there is still a need for the image, you are more than welcome to re-upload it. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought at first, but it was automatically removed from the page only after you deleted the image. I may get around to uploading it again, but I was just curious how this error might have happened. More curious than anything... - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

admin request

yeah, i don't think i'd fit the requirement just yet. disregard my request, Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for being upfront about it. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sfan00_IMG

Much appreciated if you could put this on your watch-list and field some enquiries on it in relation to image issues especially.

Whilst I hope I understand some aspects of Image policy, I often like the back-up of more experienced contributors.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I'm down with that! Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SYS_logo.png

hello

I get a message from you that my file SYS_logo.png was deleted because of a missing copyright information.

Meanwhile I repeated the upload of the file 2 times, added that this is a foto by myself, and thet I put it under public domain.

I WILL NOT UPLOAD THE FOTO AGAIN.

Many people become wiki tired. What most urgantly would have to be removed, are self-denominated 'administrators' which lost all funcionality. Thats the same system like we had on the comunism.

As you can see from Linux distros, even for gratis things has a strong concurrence. wiki have to make efforts for survive in future, inclusive remove non-funcional people.

I let the article just without this picture. Its problem of wikis quality, not of me. If you want, you recover the picture youself

And in my own sites, I add this example to the reasons why wiki isn't trustworthy, playground for trolls and a self-denominated aristocracy

bye bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by SYS-Linux (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, um, instead of making egregious complaints, you could have elected to educate yourself by reading the text on the form you used to upload the file, where the whole process of uploading files is described in excruciating detail. Alternatively, you could have also chosen to read the warnings on your talk page which would have served the same purpose. If you don't know how to read instructions, then obviously, editing Wikipedia is not for you. Bye. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Nathan^T 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath Killing the Future photo on the Aftermath page was removed. I am not truly familiar with how this works, however, I assumed that I had provided proper trademark credit and authorization for the photo. I not only took the picture, but also managed the band and released the record on my label. Complete trademark, copyright and licensing is owned me. Can you assist me in having the photo appear on the page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoident (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion-exclusion-3sets.png

I apologize for neglecting to include a copyright tag in the file inclusion-exclusion-3sets.png. Does my image now comply with Wikipedia standards? Austinmohr (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - yes, the fix you made will do just fine. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding RfA

Yes you are right that currently i do not deserve to be an administrator. so you should proceed and delete my request, but do tell me that how much edits are required for RfA? —Preceding Amitabh.Divyaraj comment added by Amitabh1986 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks for being upfront about it. While there is no set number of edits required for RfA, most successful candidates have 8,000+ edits on average. However, it's really the quality of the edits that matters. Hope that helps to answer your question. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something I'm not understanding?

Hi, my talk page seems unusually crowded this afternoon, so I thought I'd drop by yours instead. I notice that you seem to have an issue with the File:2004 RCMP Briefing Note regarding Abdullah Khadr.PNG image, first calling for it to be deleted claiming (wrongly) that it had no Fair Use rationale. If you look at the history, you will notice I removed your call for deletion, pointing out it has had a valid Fair Use Rationale since it was uploaded. You then reverted me without any comment, except to come to my talk page to threaten to ban me if I removed the no-rationale template again. When I politely pointed out to you that the image had fair-use rationale clearly listed, you again reverted, and when another user stepped in and undid your calls for deletion, you added a new template calling for its deletion saying it didn't provide any context to the article it is in. I will point out that the Fair Use Box now in the article clearly explains the context and necessity of the image - so again it seems you are mistaken, and might have some other reason to want this image deleted.

When I pointed out your error, you threatened again to ban me, and then went through all my contributions to the project (I have 50,000 edits over five years, am an administrator and accredited journalist with WMF) and called for the deletion of every Fair Use image I ever uploaded...again with the strange claim that they lacked Fair Use rationales. The few that do lack rationales, I thank you for pointing out, but will point out back to you that they were uploaded before WP had a policy requiring Rationales. Such images were grandfathered into the project, as I uploaded them more than five years ago, but should of course be updated, not deleted. If you have such an interest in them, may I suggest you invest your time in being constructive, rather than destructive?

When I went on IRC to consult other users about your strange requests for deletion and threats to ban me, nobody else seemed to quite understand the problem either. The one suggestion that made sense is that you appeared to, wrongly, believe that any image not using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template should be deleted. I would point you to WP policy on the matter (Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline), which dicatates that a rationale must be provided - not the template itself. Therefore it seems like you have just nominated nearly 100 images for deletion wrongly, based on your misunderstanding of policy. It is worth pointing out that the images you are seeking to delete for containing "only a rationale, not a rationale template" were in fact uploaded years before such a template even existed. I notice you only joined Wikipedia a year ago, it might be prudent to familiarise yourself with some of the older policies and how images have been handled through the ages, and what is required today and what is not required, before you make spurious threats to ban users for uploading an image five years ago that you find objectionable on non-policy grounds. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]