User talk:Fastily

Don 2 poster

This file had a consensus of 4:2 to keep it. So why was it deleted? X.One ^SOS 06:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't count !votes, I weigh the strength of arguments against one another. As far as I could tell, the keep !votes failed to address the concerns raised by the delete !votes and the nominator. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but one user had asked us to cover the notability of the poster from a reliable source and I gave one listing out all the 3d posters of the film! What other argument was there? Could you please restore it so that I could take a better look? Thanks. X.One ^SOS 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the keep !votes based arguments solely on WP:ILIKEIT, instead of addressing/refuting the concerns made by the nominator, which was that the file failed to meet WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. You're welcome to try and convince me otherwise, but I will reconsider only if you are able to explain how the arguments to keep the file made in the debate refute the nominator's concerns. And no, I cannot return this file for you to view. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 07:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I seemed too impatient. Coming to the debate, the criterion "NFCC#3a" says that multiple images should not convey equivalent significant information. As this is a 3d poster, it can be significantly distinguished from the 2d poster. As usually happening in western countries, in India this film has not been shot directly in 3d, but actually converted using a special technology. A poster, by definition is a screenshot of a film modified to add text and other visual effects to promote it. Due to its indirect conversion, which is one of the first in India, the poster conveys the above statement, without neglecting the fact that this is not the usual style seen in 3d films. The 3d resolution requires special lenses to view it, but one can easily make out the difference even without a 3d glass. Per "NFCC#8", its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding, as the world is not very familiar with what exactly 3d conversion leads to, and this is the result of it. Hope I made it clear. Again, I apologize for impatience. And a happy 2012 to you! Thanks. X.One ^SOS 08:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poster does not show the process of making it 3D, it does not make any particular effort to illustrate the difference between 2D and 3D, it's not in 3D itself, it's just a screenshot of the film with the word 3D on it. If it is true that this is one of the first films to be shot in 3D, and this fact is covered in reliable, third party sources, it still would not justify the use of the second movie poster. It might justify a screenshot of the movie in theaters, showing what the projection looks like without 3D glasses, as that would illustrate the concept in a way that the movie poster did not do. I'm not saying that this isn't important, I'm saying that there are other, better ways to illustrate this, and that we have to be extra careful in selecting non-free media. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is clearly in 3d itself, look at it clearly. The source says that it is in 3D, you can differentiate it from the 2d poster. It illustrates the projection without glasses. Period. What is the doubt here? X.One ^SOS 08:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryulong

Hello, Fastily! I'm afraid that I have to report User:Ryulong to you.I don't know why, but he is removing images from articles like Tom and Jerry, Pantaloon Retail India, Rural area.Examples include this, or this.I'm not all all interested in edit-wars, so any advice.I would probably be getting out of the argument going on at Pantaloon Retail India.Bye.Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 12:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo on Tom and Jerry is a derivative work and is going to be deleted from the commons. I may be mistaken, but I do not think the photo of that store front is allowed on the Commons either, but I will let that discussion follow through. And finally, that photo of a "Rural area" is a poor quality photo. The other photos on rural area are fine. It does not need a blurry photo of a grassy field in India.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dipankan, I think that you may be seeking adminship; the first thing you should understand is copyright, as your file mover permission was removed for a lack of understanding of the subject. HurricaneFan 25 — 22:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parivartann

Dear sir,

I am working for this NGO "Parivartann- Change for better". I just wanted to put one page on wiki just for information. Anybody who know this organization can edit them. Please allow me to create one simple page.

You have deleted that page under G8. As I am a new guy in wiki, I am clueless even after going through the details. Please help me to rectify my errors.

Thank you, Gurupad Hegde, Hyderabad, INDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshguru (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parivartann. The admin you're looking for is User:Qwyrxian -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of American International School of Vienna

Hi,

You deleted American International School of Vienna, due to: (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://newkai.com/reviews/ais/)

I am the owner and author of the said text on newkai.com and the author of the original text on Wikipedia. Does this still make it copyright infringement? Can I infringe on my own copyright? What do I need to do to get this article restored? -newkai t-c 15:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastily/E#G12 -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of 21st Missouri Volunteer Infantry

The alleged "copyrighted material" at http://www.wellsclan.us/History/generatn/21regmnt.htm was not material created by that website, but was an extract from Dyer, Frederick H. A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion (Des Moines, IA: Dyer Pub. Co.), 1908. "Dyer's" is a text in the public domain, and is commonly used as a (or the) source document for most of the Wikipedia entries for Union regiments from the American Civil War. My article in Wikipedia used an extract from "Dyer's" (and stated as much), as did the author of the page at the wellsclan.us website (working separately). The wellsclan.us website in question states that the information on that page is an extract from "Dyer's", as was the deleted page on the 21st Missouri Volunteer Infantry. There were NO plagiarism, and NO copyright infringement. The two documents were created separately extracting the same document which is now in the public domain. Please reinstate the deleted Wiki page for the 21st Missouri Volunteer Infantry.

I stand ready to provide any addition information you might require.--WSS Regt Historian (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, go ahead and recreate the article. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 20:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following up to your last statement "Very well then, go ahead and recreate the article"...Does this mean that my work was irrecoverably destroyed without discussion? And, what is to prevent the individual who initiated this process from having the restored articles, or other articles which use "Dyers" from being similary destroyed? The process is not transpartent on this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.7.60 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Are you standing by your WP:CSD#G12 deletion? If you are disputing User:WSS Regt Historian's claim, please say so. If not, please restore the article. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope the categorisation as unambiguous copyright infringement was a momentary aberration. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-unfree

Hi. I've restored this, as its deletion isn't non-controversial. The redirect is in active use; I discovered it had been deleted when I tried to tag an image with Twinkle, and found it dead. It is still linked from WP:CSD. I myself believe it is probably a useful redirect, as an easy shortcut to remember, and would prefer to see it go through deletion debate if you think it needs to go away. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using {{Db-unfree}} in twinkle is that it doesn't fill in the date parameters required by {{Di-orphaned fair use}} (the redirect target of Template:Db-unfree). I'll file a bug report to get this fixed. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 20:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate to lose easy-to-remember redirects, but if for some reason it can't be fixed, maybe Twinkle can be reconfigured and the pages that suggest the template be changed to the template to work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melatonin-pronunciation.ogg, etc, etc

It looks to me that the Melatonin article is using the pronunciation sound file you have nominated at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_29#File:Melatonin-pronunciation.ogg for being orphaned and of no forseeable use. Am I missing something? Are you missing something? It was not orphaned when a bot tagged it as being so. I cannot find the file on Commons. I do not understand the corresponding Fbot activity[1]. This also applies at least to the next few nominations you have made. I do not have the ability to do mass checking. Can you double-check and let be know what is going wrong? Thincat (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I was. Thanks for letting me know. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 21:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your deletion of Template:CtC

Fastily, please undo your deletion of CtC. It's a shorthand that I use personally (which is why I created it), and which I use as a personal shortlist (since no one else uses CtC, the 'what links here' function takes me to a list of files I personally vetted for transfer). Obviously with the drive starting now the timing on this couldn't be worse. I realize that this is a strange request, but I don't see the harm in it. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, you actually use that?? Freak. ;) -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 21:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you got rid of more than just my shorthand, I see FSII knocked out a few others as well. Just so you know, I am rather miffed that you didn't even leave me a deletion notice. Aside from the fact that you really can't do what you just did, I'd have defended it at the deletion forum, and had it looked like it was going sour, I'd have copied over the list to a sandbox page before you had FSII scatter things to the far winds. Grrrr... Sven Manguard Wha? 21:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>.< It was meant to assist Fbot Task 14, but I'll see if I can create an exemption for CtC. Again, I had no idea that you were using that to track your contributions... -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, you don't need to make an exception. There might be a problem, however, when all of the other people who use the shorthand templates go to use them and find they don't work. My suggestion is that you re-create the shorthand templates, and program a bot that catches instances of the shorthands being added and converts them to the proper template. A BRFA should be pretty easy for that, I think. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

There's a discussion on my talk page I'm sure you will be interested in - involving Category:Non-free images with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch

Thanks for that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Best, FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 03:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Pivovarov

Why you deleted the article & He is really famous Russian journalist and he was brave during latest protests - he refused to speak on air if media will keep silence!--94.228.193.11 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fastily/E#PROD -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for useless link, but I want to see your answer here. Or deletion was just your vandalism?--94.228.193.11 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Fastily, look at this article [[2]]. It's an autobiography of another Wikipedian user. Please delete it. Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 05:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, I have a concern to raise about. Apparently in December 2011, User:PurpleHeartEditor was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Asgardian, whereas he claims that he isn't and has actually said so that he isn't. May I request he be unblocked, or should he continue to be blocked? Abhijay ^☎(Тalk)/_{✍ (My Deeds)} 07:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser evidence (accessible to admins with the checkuser right) suggests otherwise. If User:PurpleHeartEditor/User:Asgardian wants to be unblocked, he will have to appeal directly to the arbitration committee. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with user 46.196.33.96 and 88.247.101.165 AGAIN!!!!!!!

Hey, A few days ago I informed you about user 46.196.33.96/ 88.247.101.165 that he is simply destroys the article Ben Gurion Airport. You warned him and he does'nt listen. I'd love if you help me again.--Friends147 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the IP did this time was add a link to qantas.com. If you don't mind my asking, what's wrong with it? -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are talking about? Which qantas? i mean to the article Ben Gurion Airport (in Tel Aviv)! he delete everytime things from the article without proof (i have) and if i'm show him my right proof he just ignore.I'm really don't understand why did you get me wrong.--Friends147 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound file nominations

If you are in fact carefully reviewing the files that you nominate, why did you nominate a national anthem, a recording of a Walt Whitman poem, and recordings of multiple Wikipedia articles for deletion? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally of the belief that these files should be deleted, so I nominated them for deletion to see if others agreed with me. In case you haven't noticed, I am perfectly open to opposing opinions; if someone finds a file to be useful, I'll be happy to default to keep/move to commons. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in your view, the national anthem of Malaysia as performed by the US Navy band should have been deleted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, error rate is very high ( Apollo12 - Strollingonthemoononeday.ogg or K-V Street Video1.ogg ). Quality of typical sound/video hosted on wikipedia is low but it is not valid reason to nominate everything Bulwersator (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both...files on Commons. -FASTILY ^{Happy 2012!!} 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, they are on commons because you moved them there after you nominated them for deletion, and then others pointed out that your nominations were bad. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

This seems good to me (although my other two suggestions still stand). I was already using this system in fact, because Twinkle's batch unprotect feature is nifty, so I already have my unprotections spread over four pages. So yeah, sounds good to me, maybe get more than one admin to "subscribe" to these? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of the American Old West

I noticed you deleted a category similar to this and I would like to request restoring that please. Although this category is empty at the moment it is used as a administrative category and may or may not have items in it at any given time as they are identified or found. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates that are already on Commons

Hi Fastily. What about checking Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates for files that are already on Commons? File:Glasgow Anniesland (Scottish Parliament constituency).svg for example was already there before being tagged by your bot. --Leyo 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Iroquois-di-suvero.jpg & File:800px-Occidental Avenue South (Seattle, Washington).jpg

please reconsider, these wrongful deletions. these are in strict accordance with the NFCC. there can be no non-free alternative to 3D art. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]