User talk:Fastily

Neon Knights Page

Hey you never got back to me on my last question. You said you would reinstate the Neon Knights (Band) page once a few adjustments had been made. What adjustments are these? Thanks

Er. I happened to notice this post just now. If still applicable, could the person who posted this indicate somewhere so I know who posted? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Its me (vansheboy), just wondering what changes I need to make to get page back up as per our last discussion that was removed. Thanks

Looks like the page was WP:PROD'd. Did I tell you I could restore the page for you if you wanted? Although FWIW, I recommend having a draft restored to your userspace so you can work on it there before moving it to the mainspace. Your call though. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, you recommended that it be drafted in my userspace. But I wasn't sure what changes I needed to make so that it doesn't get deleted again. Also do you have the script for the page cause otherwise I would have to type the whole article again... Vansheboy (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done at User:Vansheboy/Neon Knights (band). Feel free to move the page back to the mainspace when you're ready. For reference: WP:ADS, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BAND, WP:POV, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:MOS, WP:RFF, WP:YFA. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will review and post when readyVansheboy (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

Nyttend just restored this after he deleted it, after I raised the lack of clear consensus at CfD (one keep and one delete within a few months), then you come along and delete it again. I had suggested to Nyttend that a new Cfd (once the category is populated) might be better than speedy. DuncanHill (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The earlier CfD was at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20#Category:Silver Buffalo awardees. Unfortunately, it was not linked correctly at the start of the second one. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I read that the result of the most recent discussion was delete. Am I missing something...? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are missing that when another admin speedily deleted it because of that discussion, he restored it when questioned. So, an admin speedily deleted it, reconsidered it and restored. You then speedily deleted it within 24 hours without referring to him. I do appreciate that admins are under no obligation to discuss their admin actions with anyone, least of all other admins with whom they disagree and whose actions they are undoing, but it ain't conducive to a positive and collaborative atmosphere. Nyttend has described your behaviour as possibly wheel-warring, and suggested I take it to ANI. I'd rather not.

So, we have two CfD's within a few months of each other, with opposite outcomes, and a recent recreation which one admin, on being asked about it, has decided should not be speedied. My position is that I do not believe that a clear consensus for deletion can be said to exist, based on my readings of the CFDs and Nyttend's decision to rescind his action. I'd be interested to know your reason for counter-acting Nyttend's actions without talking to him first. I would suggest that a new CfD (with the category being properly populated first) would have been more appropriate than speedying, if you believe that the category should be deleted.DuncanHill (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that Nyttend is already jumping to conclusions of wheel-warring; in my dealings with him, he is quick to assume bad faith and is frequently uncommunicative. I have not violated WP:0WW, and I'll personally start an ANI thread to evaluate and judge my delete if need be. In all fairness, if you can point me to a discussion that occurred more recently than Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees with a clear consensus to keep the category, I'll restore the page, no further questions. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to one with a clear consensus to delete? Your insistence on speedying appears to be based on just the kind of proceduralist arguments that were discounted in order to allow a delete close to the last CfD. As to "uncommunicative", you could see from the logs of the page that Nyttend had reconsidered the speedy already, you disagreed with him, and chose to reverse his action without mentioning it to him. Is that him being uncommunicative, or is it you?

As I said, I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. I do see confusion and disagreement between admins. Recreation, population, and a third CfD if you believe it should be deleted, seem to me to be a way forward. DuncanHill (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, calm down. I thought we were having a cordial and professional discussion. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees was closed as delete. That's good enough for me, and should be good enough for you. If there's a problem with that close, you need to discuss it with the deleting admin, not me. So far, you have failed to provide me with a more recent discussion than Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees, closed as keep or no consensus. If you've shown this missing discussion to Nyttend, please know that I would like to see it too. That being said, I will be requesting the opinion of the original CSD nominator and see what they have to say. If they too agree there is no clear consensus to keep/delete the page, I'll gladly restore and relist the page at CFD. Please understand that I am not trying to f*ck with you or make your life difficult. I am only interested in upholding policy and tangible consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Nyttend to reconsider his speedy deletion of the category, he did, and restored. To my mind that is the same as declining the speedy. What does policy say to do when a speedy is declined? I don't know why you keep alluding to a "missing discussion" - I have never suggested there was another apart form the two contradictory ones already mentioned. For you to rely on procedural niceties, when the "delete" CfD which you support excluded "keep" !votes on the grounds that they were based on procedural niceties strikes me as, well, a bit off.

As for the original CSD nominator, I don't know who that is, but I would guess he is someone who is currently using the deletion of this category as an argument for the deletion of certain other related categories - perhaps you would tell me if this is so?

I never suggested that you were trying to make my life difficult, I'm just trying to get some clarity. DuncanHill (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see nothing improper in the original closing of the CFD as delete, no discussion in the intervening years that indicate that consensus has changed regarding the category (indeed, many similar categories for similar awards along these lines have been deleted in the intervening years), no indication that the category was needed or wanted (having lain deleted for well over three years and only re-created when it was mentioned as having been deleted in this CFD for two other Scouting awards. Had I not linked in the CFD I have no doubt that the category would not have been re-created. Reading through the 2007 CFD it appears that the closing admin interpreted the debate reasonably and within the bounds of his discretion. The deletion arguments appear to be superior both in number and in quality, with the comments by Dr. Submillimeter being particularly persuasive. As noted by the closing admin, many of the keep opinions were based on the recentness of the previous CFD and did not discuss policies or guidelines, nor did they in my opinion successfully rebut the assertion that the Silver Buffalo is the sort of award that warrants categorization with one editor questioning whether the award itself was even notable under WP guidelines. Since the determination of consensus appears to be valid, there should be no problem with the speedy deletion.
• I do not understand DuncanHill's assertion that there is no clear consensus, which if I am reading his comments correctly is at least partially based on the existence of the earlier CFD which closed as keep. Consensus can change and each new CFD is dealt with in turn. The existence and outcome of the first CFD were provided to the interested parties, who were free to consider it in formulating their opinions. The closing admin, however, was under no obligation to consider the old CFD when closing the new one. If an editor believes the outcome of a CFD is in error because the closing administrator misinterpreted policy or consensus, the editor may open a deletion review to allow the community to consider the matter. That did not happen here following the close in 2007 nor as near as I can tell in the intervening 3 1/2 years.
• I do not understand Nyttend's assertion that this category is "different from before" or hir comment on DuncanHill's talk page that "the entire contents" of the re-created page were different. As I said on Nyttend's talk page, whether the category is called "awardees" or "recipients" it's still for people who have been given the Silver Buffalo. If CFD results in the deletion of Category:Fooian Boos", allowing Category:Boos who are Fooian to remain for the same contents is an invitation to editors to game the system, re-creating their preferred categories under names that are variant enough for them to claim it's a completely new category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@are You The Cow of Pain, think you it possible that consensus might have changed since the delete CfD? Speedy does not allow us to judge this. I'd also be interested to know did you tag it for speedy twice? Someone tagged it, Nyttend deleted then reconsidered and restored, then you tagged it again. If you disagreed with Nyttend's restoration, perhaps it would have been better to have talked to him about it. The fact that it was recreated, and that Nyttend undid his speedy, suggests that there is not cler consensus for it remaining deleted. I have repeatedly suggested that the best way to achieve clarity is for it to be restored, populated, and a new, third, CfD to be opened by anyone who thinks it should be deleted. The two original CfDs were 3 years ago, it is not "gaming the system" to suggest a new go. The second Cfd so soon after the first "keep" was. DuncanHill (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to draw both Fastily's and Are You The Cow Of Pain?'s attention to this comment on the latter's talk page, [1], which is directly relevant to this case. DuncanHill (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Fastily, you have said you want to see policy kept to, please re-read WP:CSD, paying particular attention to the third paragraph "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.". This cat had survived a previous deletion discussion. Now, Fastily you are an admin, so I think it is reasonable to assume that you were already familiar with this, and Are You The Cow, you had previously had your attention drawn to this, so I would like an explanation from both of you as to why you deliberately ignored the policy you pretend to be enforcing? DuncanHill (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jclemens's interpretation of that statement is disputed. Note that the proscription on deleting such material is not absolute ("should not" does not mean "may not" or "shall not"). And no, based on the many deletion discussions relating to awards categories that have taken place between January 2007 and now I do not believe that consensus against them has changed in general or as it relates to this category in particular. Again, I believe that had the old CFD not been linked to the new one whoever remade the category would have never even noticed its absence. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins need a very good reason to ignore a "should" statement. When another admin has already effectively declined a speedy, then I can't imagine what such a reason would be (other than copyvio or BLP issues). DuncanHill (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Actually, no, it's not disputed. A couple of people have said "Gee, that doesn't sound right to me", but no one has actually tried to change the plain text of WP:CSD to amend the meaning. What IS clear, however, is that you, Cow, tagged an article for G4 TWICE. That's disruptive editing: if you disagree with an admin's action (Nyttend) with respect to a G4, approach them on their talk page. The appeal of a speedy decline is XfD, not slapping the same tag back on. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another sad case of the all too often admins acting without discussing, exacerbated by the "awards should be in cats/lists" debate. At least talk is happening now. I just wish both issues would be settled and stop flaring up. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just adding a time-stamped comment to stop thread being automatically archived before Fastily gets a chance to respond. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there is anything left more me to say, unless you have a direct question for me. Everything I would have said has already been said. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So you have no intention of replying to Nyttend or Jclemens or Rlevse, or of addressing the point about what CSD says about speedying pages which have previously survived deletion discussions (i.e. don't)? DuncanHill (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bring in Nyttend

Enough has been said already that I hope that all of you will permit me to start a new subsection.

• First off, Fastily, problems I believe that we've had between us are image-deletion-related; nothing of that has affected this process in my mind.
• As to the wheel warring — it's one thing if I decline a speedy deletion, but another if I delete and then undelete — anyone has the technical ability to decline a speedy deletion, but only admins have the technical ability to undelete or to undo that undeletion; that's why I say that it's wheel warring. I assure you that I did that because I changed my mind on deletion due to DuncanHill's comments; it wasn't because I wanted to be able to accuse a future deleter of wheel warring.
• On the question of categories being subject to G4 — we have a major problem with categories versus other types of pages. Other types of pages can be recreated after XFD if they're substantially different; nobody has a policy-based reason to complain if an article is deleted because it fails to show any evidence of notability and then recreated after several reliable print sources are found and added to the article, or if a navigational template is deleted because it only links two articles and then recreated because ten more articles have been created and thus linked by the new template. With categories, it's hard for the same to be true, since they work so differently; accordingly, I believe that this criterion should be applied more cautiously.
• For this category being G4-able — all of you admins can look at the category as it was when it was deleted the first time versus the way it was when I deleted and then undeleted it. You'll see that the code itself was substantially different; that's the standard by which we judge that other sorts of pages are G4-able, so I came to the conclusion that this page should be judged in the same way. I do not hesitate to delete page X if it's identical to page Y that was deleted at XFD; the thing is that this page was different from Category:Silver Buffalo awardees, not that it had a different name.

Have I addressed everything, or is there something to which I forgot to respond? Someone please let me know if I forgot something. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ken Shirk

Hi. Someone tagged Talk:Ken Shirk and despite my hangon you deleted it. When Ken Shirk turns blue, please restore Talk:Ken Shirk. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Shirk. Thanks. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Once Ken Shirk exists, sure. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Now the article exists, but in the process the talk page got created anew. So now you get to do that thing you admins do do so well. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Leprous page

Hi there,

I have created a page for a band called Leprous with material that they have for public usage on their media webpage. I received the warning that the page was speedy deleted due to copyright issues. The photos are taken from http://leprous.net/media.html and they're under the title of official pictures. If this is still considered a copyright infringement, I can eventually use some poorer quality images taken in concerts. Thanks for reading this!

An the info on trying to recreate the page is 18:20, 7 September 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Leprous" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.leprous.net/mobile/band/index.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeoftearz (talk • contribs)

Andrea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeoftearz (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the text of the webpage available under the same license as Wikipedia's license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, or a less restrictive license (e.g. Public Domain)? If not, then the text is not suitable for Wikipedia. If the band is interested in donating their webpage text to Wikipedia, see WP:DCP for details on how to do that. If you ask me though, I would just recommend rehashing the text of the website in your own words, it's really much easier than the aforementioned method. As for the images, they too will have to be freely licensed. For a list of media file licenses compatible with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses and Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Public domain. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Ok, I will re edit the text myself and upload photos taken personally. Any chance you save me some trouble by reviving the page I created? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeoftearz (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Page is reedited with rephrased text in my own words. Also no photo for now, I'm considering one that the band has for press and media usage on their page. But, I need to ask you to revive the pages

• Aeolia (Leprous album) 18:43, 7 September 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Aeolia (Leprous album)" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
• Silent waters (Leprous album) 18:43, 7 September 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Silent waters (Leprous album)" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

since they have a page to depend on now. Thanks. Andrea Lakeoftearz (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate the redirects -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Society for Set Thinkers

I am one of a set of members in a society called "Set Thinkers." Over the last three days I have been bringing up our Wikipedia page, which describes our activities. This morning that page was deleted.

Therefore,I must be doing something wrong.

Could you tell me what it is and we'll will correct.

Thanks,

Gary Deines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garydeines (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the organization in question does not exist, or does not satisfy our general notability guideline. If you can provide me with a list of credible third party sources that satisfy our general notability guideline, I will consider restoring the page for you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos of unclear origin

Hi Fastily. Greco22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been uploading images of unclear origin. An example is this image. It mentions it is licensed under CC 2.0 etc. but I don't think the license is valid. Could you check it out as well as other similar pictures uploaded by Greco22? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome Fastily. Thank you for your help. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Troutman Sanders

Fastily, updated Troutman Sanders logo. I'm sure it's okay. Let me know if you see something wrong. Thanks. Carsonmc (talk)

Looks pretty good. The only one thing I would change, is the purpose parameter of the {{logo fur}} template, from "org" to "Infobox", as the file is being used in the infobox at Troutman Sanders. Other than that, no glaring issues. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Victoria Climbié.jpg

I'm sort of confused about this. After being asked to apply a FUR, I did so and from their edits to the page, it seemed they accepted it as a legitimate addition. However, Elen of the Roads later added a speedy tag which you declined. Can I ask whether the article indeed satisfies the NFCC and if it doesn't what needs to be done? Christopher Connor (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Victoria Climbié.jpg is fully complaint with the non-free content criteria. Although use of press photos is discouraged, it is not prohibited; since File:Victoria Climbié.jpg illustrates a subject in which a free licensed, alternate photograph can no longer be created, the use of the photo is complaint with Wikipedia non-free content criterion #1. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I check, I was of the opinion that WP:NFC#UUI #7 states that a Press agency photo (photo is copyright to Press Association) could only be used where "the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." This photo is in the infobox - it's used for identification purposes only. There are other photos of Climbie that are not press agency photos. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, WP:NFC is only a guideline. But yes, if there are free photos of Climbie available, File:Victoria Climbié.jpg should replaced by a free version as soon as possible. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough (re the guideline). I'm not that familiar with image tagging - should I have tagged it with a different tag, or not tagged it at all. There are certainly photos that are not copyright to the Press Association - I would have thought the guideline meant that it would be preferable to use one of those.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With all due respect to Fastily, this image is from a press agency thusly is not allowed via Fair Use. There have been may discussions about images from press agency's and stock photo agency's. Elen is very correct, the guideline is based on policy. The template you removed form the image even states Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). Jimbo himself had the "final word" is deleting the press agency image File:Il-76 shootdown.jpg as a copyvio, despite having a FUR. You can read the deletion discussion as well: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 28#Image:Il-76 shootdown.jpg. This image fails per policy *and* guidelines. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

((Edit conflict}}First off all I do not appreciate your comment about "forum shopping". I tagged the image and another admin reverted - I commented to them because off their choice - and if you note I had also posted here. I have reverted your reversion pending further discussion. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't take the time to read my reply to Elen above. No worries, I'll repeat it for you. WP:NFC is only a guideline. I've been working in images for over two years now, and I have never seen a policy prohibiting the use of press photos. If you can find me that policy page, well then touche, you got me - I won't push the issue. Otherwise, I'm going to kindly ask you to refrain from forum shopping, like you did here, and nominate the file at FFD instead if you still disagree. The use of press photos when no free image is available is to be taken on a case by case basis, and I think we would benefit from community review. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I did, and now you are pretending I did not read your comments. Please re-read the policys about the use of press agency photos. And, gain, I am not, nor was I "FOurm shopping". Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry if I come off snippy but I tend to have this type of conversation over and over gain with admins who do not feel agency's photos are included in the policy - Read NFCC1 and CDS - both policies. I see you reverted - fine, lets take it to IFD for yet another press agency discussion that always seems to result in deletion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, fact of the matter is, you didn't. You're referring to WP:NFC like it's a policy page when it is clearly not the case. And also, I would gladly re-read a policy page detailing use press agency photos, if you would cite one, assuming such a page even exists. With respect to forum shopping, please don't deny it, you've been here long enough to know what you did was wrong. You disagreed with my decline, so you simply re-tagged the file in hopes of having another sysop delete the file. If that's not textbook forum shopping, I don't know what is. I'm not interested in a revert war, nor am I interested in creating drama. If you disagree with my interpretation of media file guidelines/policy, make your case at FFD, instead of forum shopping and revert warring, which is disruptive. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert S. Capon Page

Hello. Robert Capon's wikipedia page was deleted because of the appearance of copyright infringement with his faculty page at the Darden Business School. Mr. Capon has given me permission to use the material from his Darden page in the creation of his wikipedia page. He, in fact, wrote (and owns) the biographical material on his Darden page, and owns the photographs that were used in the Wikipedia article. If you would kindly give me instructions, Mr. Capon would be happy to email you with his written permission to use the biographical material from Darden in the Wiki page. Mr. Capon does not claim copyright to the Darden biographical material, and was happy for me to use it in the Wikipedia article. Kind regards, Kettbotn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kettbotn (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, have him email that information to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". Be sure to specify the title of the article on Wikipedia and the license it is to be published under (CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL or a less restrictive license). For more information, see WP:DCP, and WP:PERMISSION. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mr. Capon has sent the requested email to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org." Would you be kind enough to restore the page? Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter. Kind regards, Kettbotn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kettbotn (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

question

-discussion moved from Carnildo's talk page-

I just uploaded File:miners castle rocks and water.jpg and when I was uploading it, I messed up on the comment and it looks really weird now and it wont let me edit that section so i was wonder if you could tell me how to fix that? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You could just do this... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at where it says comment it gives the copyright information that is in the wrong spot there when all I meant to put there is say "self created by Inka 888", I can't remove what it says there. --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 01:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Two things: first I would open an account at the Wikimedia Commons and upload your public domain images there. You can connect it with your existing Wikipedia account by using the same user name there when you register. The photos can be used the same way here. Going to the Commons is much easier to categorize and it frees up space on Wikipedia. Second, do you have a bigger image file? A picture this small doesn't really help a whole lot. Generally, the only time you want smaller, low-resolution pictures is for copyrighted logos and insignias. For public domain photos, the highest resolution available is preferred. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Fastily, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And of course no matter what, I really appreciate all the time you were willing to put into this. I do, thanks Fastily. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And you're very welcome :) Enjoy the tools!! Best wishes, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User: 115.186.97.178

This user have stopped doing disruptive edits from this IP address but he is using other IP addresses to vandalize, they are, User talk:115.186.97.186, User talk:115.186.97.177, User talk:115.186.97.183, User talk:115.186.97.185, User talk:115.186.97.179. I don't know whether they all are the same users or the user, 115.186.97.178 uses different IP addresses to vandalize. Could this article be Semi-protected in order to avoid vandalism or disruption to the article of Climate of Karachi ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Haridas 3years.jpg

Hi! Could you please restore this image so that I could add the source? The poster was published before 1950 and is therefore, clearly in public domain. I just got to know of the deletion of the file. The tagger has never bothered to inform me.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Be sure to remove the deletion tag once you have specified a source. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert W. Walker (Author) Page

I'm new here, I literally signed up minutes ago.

I'm an advanced reader for an author (Robert W. Walker) who is a professor at my college, West Virginia State University (although he's not teaching any of the classes I'm taking) and whose page you deleted last night.

I'm led to understand from what wikipedia says, his biographical page was deleted because it was "Unambiguous advertising and promotion."

What I would like to do is somehow directly or indirectly facilitate the construction of a "Biography of a living person" page for the man that meets the standards that Wikipedia has set. What I'd like to see as an end result is a page that has some biographical information about his place of birth, places he's lived, his education, personal life, list of pen names, list of works referenced with ISBNs, dates of publication, relevant formats such as hardback, mass market paperback, or ebook, and to appropriately cross-link to notable places (examples include Chicago and Belfast), things (RMS Titanic), and events (The World's Fair).

Wikipedia said I needed to contact you in order to make this happen, as the content would include information from a page you are responsible for deleting.

Also, as an admin, you'll probably be able to help me make sure that the information I gather for this purpose is of a high enough caliber, and appropriately verifiable.

--RobertFarleyJr (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the deleted edits, the page looks more like a job resume than it does an informative encyclopedia article. If you're up to it, I would recommend rewriting the article from scratch. Here are some links you may find useful: WP:YFA, WP:WIZ, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:ADS, WP:MOS, WP:GNG, WP:CITE, WP:RFF, WP:NPOV, WP:POV. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or are in need of assistance. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

Actually, I am well within 3RR; I have conducted two reverts, one of them unintentional; I undid and saved by accident before I could write a novel text. But I thank you for the comment, and have already requested protection; I see you declined it, and would therefore appreciate enforcement of 3RR.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an exact revert; indeed an undo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While that's probably true, I had to warn you if I was going to warn User:Kwamikagami. If you know you're not going to break 3RR, then go ahead and ignore my warning. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

question

How does one revert vandalism manually without using a anti vandalism tool? --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 19:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Use the undo function. That's what I did when I was a new user looking to receive rollback. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing if a page has multiple kinds of protection on it and how would one get both the lock symbols at the top of the page without them overlaping? --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Family

You just deleted my page The Billboard Family . I hit save and I got the message .... after I just completely created all the content. Luckily, I was able to save the content, so it is ready to go. Can you un-delete this page? Thanks!

zoetifex Studios

I had a question posted on the zoetifex Studios page and also had a "hangon" tag posted as suggested. So why was it deleted before my question was answered? So I'll ask my question again. Why is it ok to have other animation studios on Wikipedia but not ours? You keep saying it's unambiguous advertising. Why is that not the case with the other studios? I didn't even get all of the content up there. I would appreciate an explanation. Mkadrie (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By any chance, are you the same person as Kadrie69 or Zoetifex? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Userification

Hi, if you move content from article space into user space can you remember to non-wiki the categories? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, of course. I'll keep that in mind for the future. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion - Van Mildert Boat Club

Hi Fastily

I would like to appeal against the deletion of the Van Mildert Boat Club wikipedia article. I believe it to be both factual and informative. Could you please restore the page and highlight the particular areas that you thought were not well referenced so that I can make adjustments accordingly.

Regards Woody3254 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody3254 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted per the prod process. This means I can restore the page for you, but I would recommend having a copy restored to your userspace first, so you can work on improving the article at your own pace without running the risk of re-deletion. Once you are finished making improvements, you can move the page back to the mainspace. How does that sound? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert S. Capon page still pending

Dear Fastily: I just wanted to let you know that the Robert S. Capon page is still pending. Mr. Capon has sent the requested email to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org." Could you please restore the page? Thank you, Kettbotn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kettbotn (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The page will automatically be restored and assigned a ticket number in the OTRS database once the email is received and the permissions are approved. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Chloé Graftiaux

Some time ago I tagged Chloé Graftiaux as not-notable and the article has been improved some but do you think, as I do, that she still does not pass the WP:ATHLETE threshold? ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks fairly acceptable to me. The sources appear reliable and the article is decently written. If you feel the article should be deleted of course, I think prodding would be your best bet. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Author Tosca Lee

Fastily,

Thank you for your response.

My account is WeaverWiki and I recent updated Author Tosca Lee's profile. I would appreciate your review and see if I can re-write portions of the article so it seems less promotional? Tosca is a well-known author and is linked to several other wiki articles.

Thank you, Katie Weaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weaverwiki (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. And yes, you are more than welcome to resubmit the article after having removed promotional material from it. For reference: WP:PEACOCK, WP:ADS, WP:BLP, WP:V. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

24 Hour Church of Elvis

Just curious, would you mind reversing yourself on this page move into mainspace without redirect? The article history shows that it wasn't really promotional until last June; a simple reversion of this series of edits would (at least in my mind) disqualify it from speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll suggest it to WWB and see if they're alright with that. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

deleted "Kieran Leonard"

Hi! I feel rather out of my depth here so please correct me if I'm wrong but I think you said you would restore the "Kieran Leonard" page that was deleted to my personal userspace so I can work on it and later move it to the article space, when I've finished with it. Unless I'm looking in the completely wrong place, this hasn't happened. Could you please do this or alternatively email me a copy of the original article? myska_x@web.de Thanks! Michellemisfit (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that? So sorry I didn't get back to you earlier on this. I've restored a copy of the deleted article at User:Michellemisfit/Kieran Leonard. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of File:Frodo.jpg in the article Frodo Baggins

Hi Fastily. I noticed that the non-free use image File:Frodo.jpg got added to Frodo Baggins. I thought it might be a questionable use of the image, but I don't know where to report it. You seem to know a lot about images, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Thanks. Susfele (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith edit that unintentionally broke the infobox. If I remember correctly, Wikiproject Lord of the Rings reached consensus to not include images of characters in infoboxes because many interpretations of each character exist and so that each interpretation can be given equal weight. At any rate, I have reverted the edit with a "good faith" edit summary. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Davidgreco.jpg

Good Day! I see that you responded to the CSD on File:Davidgreco.jpg and did not agree with my case on it's non-free fair use. I do have a question to ask, did you read the talk page, and answer the question regaurding the only alterative? If not, then please give me your reasoning for the agreeing with the CSD, as it unable to be replaced with a free image. Did you not agree with my statements? Did you choose to go though with it just because Chzz listed it? If you have any suggestions on how I can better this suggestion, please let me know, I ask for opinions and help for a reason. --Wolfnix • Talk • 04:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. David Greco is still alive, therefore, it is theoretically possible to take a freely licensed photo of him. Additionally, the file also fails WP:NFCC#8, as a file which does not enhance the reader's understanding, to the point where it would be detrimental if excluded. Hope this helps to answer your questions. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. David Greco, may be alive, but the point of the inclusion of the picture was to show who he was, head admin for twelve years, teacher for over twenty-five, whom recently retired, and also the admin who dealt the the ROTC scandal that happened at the High School, where Mr. Greco forced students to take part in JR ROTC and only yielded because of the NYCLU. The picture directly from a media interview dealing with the Jr. ROTC issue. These two points, is why I believed it passed WP:NFCC#8 and yes theoretically it is possible to take a picture of him, but as I no longer live in the area, and he is retired I used a a picture from a media snapshot, and properly credited it. Just my two cents in the matter. --Wolfnix • Talk • 04:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.

Speedy deletion declined: Zahra Universe

Hello Fastily. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zahra Universe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Er...I wasn't the one who applied the tag. I reverted it's removal... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect deletions

Lots of those things you're deleting have inbound links from other pages (for example, Wikipedia:MeSH D08 points to many of the redirects to Category:EC 1.4). Might want to check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology to see if there was a plan or reason for the redirects (that have existed for many years) or for help fixing your link-breaking. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I did break a number of links. Guess it's time to do a mass restore... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually making my way here to say the same thing about C:SD. I was boggled as to why this kept leading me to the search page instead of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. You may want to restore all those redirects before an angry mob forms... — ξ^xplicit 05:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a perfect time to invoke WP:IAR to permit CAT as a pseudo-namespace (I regularly use CAT:CSD for getting to the speedies). This should have been discussed at the very least... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, how were you managing to do such a massive amount of deletions so quickly? At 05:37, you were doing a deletion about one every second and a half... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, Fastily's deletions have always been beyond any normal rate. He can go through and demolish the daily categories in Template:CSD/Subcategories without any automated tools in ten minutes on a good day. The fastest internet in the world and the never-crashing browser a 15 million open tabs could never go that fast. It's somewhat intimidating.
On a side note, I just wanted to point out that I skimmed through some of these deletions and I'd say most, if not all, don't meet the deletion criteria for R2. It does list exception, which include redirects from the article namespace to "Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces". — ξ^xplicit 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that right after deleting those pages. I'll do a mass restore as soon as I'm back on my computer, but for the time being, I'd appreciate it if I could have some help cleaning up that mess D: Thanks, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Explicit Tabbed browsing ftw :D -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fastily

You just deleted my page about The What on Earth? Wallbook - the thing is this really is a new, innovative publishing concept, with a new word and it's notable for being the first attempt to illustrate all history graphically from the beginning of time to the present day . Iabsolutely want to reflect Wikipedia guidelines, and would very much appreciate you help in trying to get the piece into shape without it being deleted.

Here's a rough copy as it was - any advice you can give would be hugely appreciated.

Very many thanks!

-chris lloyd

The What on Earth? Wallbook claims to be the first ever attempt to illustrate the entire history of everything from the beginning of time to the present day on a single timeline. It also includes a 7,000-word narrative guide.

The A3-sized, hard-backed publication is concertina folded so it can be read like a book or hung on a wall. When fully unfolded it extends to a length of 2.3 metres. Along the timeline its creator has tried to include every major event in natural or human history on the 2.3 metre-long, A3-sized timeline – that’s well over 1,000 pictures and captions.

Design

The Wallbook is notable for its use of a logarithmic timescale. At the beginning of the timeline 1cm represetns the passage of 1 billion years but by the end of the timeline the same space accounts for just 5 years. A total of 12 changes of scale accounts for how the whole of the past can be graphcially represented on a single piece of paper.

The 1,000 pictures and captions are arranged into twelve streams of colour which provide the backdrops along which the major events of natural and human history unfold. Space, Earth, Sky, Sea, Land and Humanity account for the story of evolution while Asia, the Middle East, Europe, the Americas, Africa and Australasia convey the rise and fall of human civilisations.

At the top of the timeline is a series of globes. To begin with these track the movement of the world’s continental plates which collide into a single supercontinent, and then prise apart again, a geological cycle that repeats over millions of years. By the end the globes chart the rise and fall of major human empires.

Creators

The What on Earth? Wallbook is the brainchild of Christopher Lloyd, author of two world history books, both published by Bloomsbury PLC, entitled What on Earth Happened? The Complete Story of Planet, Life and People from the Big Bang to the Present Day (ISBN 978-0747594598) and What on Earth Evolved? 100 Species that Changed the World (ISBN 978-0747599623). The idea of how it might be possible to illustrate a complete overview of all history came to him in on a skiing holiday in the Bernese Oberland in early 2010.

To turn his original sketches into reality, Lloyd turned to Beckenham-based artist Andy Forshaw and book designer William Webb. Together with two Bloomsbury editors, they founded a new publishing company called What on Earth Publishing Ltd to publish the innovative wallbook.

Distribution

The What on Earth? Wallbook was launched exclusively through The Daily Telegraph newspaper on Saturday 4th September. The paper sold more than 600 copies in the first week.

Nomenclature

Since the launch of the What on Earth? Wallbook the word wallbook has been defined in Macmillan's Open Dictionary as a new noun meaning: a large printed book which can be mounted on a wall

CAT:SD

Fastily, why did you delete CAT:SD? R2 specifically excludes the "Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal:" namespaces from deletion under the R2 criterion, see Wikipedia:CSD#Redirects. Courcelles 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this is being discussed above. — ξ^xplicit 06:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. One of these days I'm going to learn to read an entire talk page before commenting. Maybe. Maybe not given this talk page is 66K long, though. Ignore me, then. Courcelles 06:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)