User talk:Fastily

This is Fastily's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 7 days

File:Guzman Iparraguirre 2004.jpg

Hi Fastily. What do you think about this file? It's an AP image which might mean it's subject to speedy per WP:F7. It's being used twice: once for apparently primary identification purposes in Elena Iparraguirre and once in Abimael Guzmán#Trials and imprisonment. The first non-free use might be OK since Iparraguirre is likely locked away somewhere without any reasonable expectation of a free equivlent being found or created, except that it's an AP photo. The second non-free might just squeak by since there is a little bit about Guzmán and some others facing the media and giving a revolutionary salute, but this also seem sufficiently understood through text alone per WP:FREER. Does this qualify for {{db-f7}} or might it be better to discuss at FFD instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. This is a clear F7 case imo. Even if it wasn't an AP image, it would run afoul of WP:NFCC#1 (for both uses) and WP:NFCC#8 (for use in Abimael Guzmán). Regards, FASTILY 02:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I've tagged the file with {{db-f7}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my userpage deleted?

Would like to have more information about how my user page describing what einguterplan means in German to English qualifies as a missuse? How am I supposed to start contributing if every single edit I try to make while I learn the wiki mode gets deleted? Please put back. Its super frustrating and am trying to not make mistakes.

Einguterplan (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Einguterplan[reply]

Jclisters

It has taken me a long time & consultations with many people/sources to write the article for Wikipedia entitled: Jclisters. And you have deleted it. Please, is there any chance of it being retrieved. Simply so that I can copy it. If I don't get to see this article again it will mean that months of meticulous work have been lost forever Terry Jclisters (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jclisters. Here's a temporary pastebin with your text: [1] -FASTILY 03:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of user MichaelUlrichHensel

Dear friend, frankly I am puzzled by the speedy deletion. I have been user and contributor of Wikipedia for many years. All I have done is correct factual errors and update a page that contains information about me and that has been in existence for many years. In doing this I have followed the example of many other pages that exist on Wikipedia (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_van_Berkel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_Zaera-Polo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farshid_Moussavi, etc.) There has been no explanation what was actually done wrong and I literally had no chance to respond or possibly correct any errors. I request the chance to fix any specified errors and for the page not to be deleted. This is in admiration of Wikipedia as a friendly space.MichaelUlrichHensel (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 17#Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

Were you supposed to delete just one image or both? If one, then I think you deleted the Spain cover art by mistake, didn't you? -- George Ho (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. Yes, I only meant to delete the Dutch version. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, FASTILY 03:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And what about File talk:Leonard Cohen Hallelujah.jpg? George Ho (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croatia national football team crest.svg

Hi Fastily. Would you mind taking a look at this file? It was removed from the team article per an NFCR discussion, but it’s been occasionally re-added since then (most recently yesterday). The reasons given for it’s removal may be changed if a new consensus on this type of use is established, but the file will continue to be removed by bots as long as there’s no rationale for the use in the team file and a rationale cannot technically be valid for that use until a new consensus has been established; I was going to remove the file again myself, but wanted to see if there’s another way to work around this first. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. The use of {{Non-free reviewed}} on the file description page seems adequate to me. If editors don't read/follow instructions, then that's entirely on them. Regards, FASTILY 03:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deletion of User:Bobjtls and User:Bobjtls/sandbox

Hi Fastily. I am concerned about the process of removing my DRAFT page on Australian artist Yvonne Boag. I accept the page might not fit the Wikipedia guidelines in its current form, but the page, in my sandbox area, was a very early draft. I think the process needs to be more constructive rather than destructive. It would seem to me to be more encouraging to provide constructive feedback rather than the template "has been deleted" especially since the supposed 'contest' button was not visible at all. But maybe, Wikipedia does not want to be so engaging or constructive?

I think some of the comments to you above, support my view.

Anyway, I have asked to have my user credentials removed and will not attempt to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. This probably does not bother anyone.

Bobjtls (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about Advertising.

I contacted you since you were the one who deleted the user page of Blaise Bling. (And thank you for that.) Unfortunately he seems to be adding more promotion to his talk page and I don’t know how to approach it. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James-the-Charizard. I've scrubbed the spam revisions. Regards, FASTILY 19:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fastily. I wasn't sure how to approach it so I came here since you had deleted his userpage. James-the-Charizard (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Retired Mic in dedication of Jack Buck.png

I could easily end this, but... where? I've never before seen an image deletion come up with absolutely no link to where the discussion is. I've no idea where to discuss it! I tried just going to the discussion page, but there's no discussion for this file. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Silent Wind of Doom: it's a proposed deletion so... see WP:DEPROD. Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming ANI

Hi Fastily,

In the coming days (and maybe even hours), I am intending to post something to ANI regarding a user's conduct. Before I do, I was hoping that I could please ask some advice of you as you have recently dealt with this editor regarding similar behaviour. I am not going to name the editor because a) I have reason to believe that he monitors my edit history and will respond to my posts on other editors' talk pages and b) he may try to bring up this discussion in the ANI and try claiming that I am canvassing admins. I fully expect that this will go to ANI because if I do not raise it, he will; he and I (under my old account) have a long history, and I feel that he abuses the ANI process by lobbying for admins to punish people for disagreeing with him. Every time we have a disagreement, he goes straight to ANI.

I would like to outline some of the arguments that I intend to make and get your opinion on whether these are things admins could take action over. I will not provide specific evidence because that is for ANI; rather, I am wondering if there are specific policies I can raise about the editor's behaviour. Some of these may be very hard to demonstrate because he is very good at talking his way out of trouble. If this is something that you cannot do because it might taint the ANI, then I understand entirely.

My first concern is about misrepresentation. When I raised a content dispute and the editor was given the chance to provide his perspective, he claimed that there was an existing consensus and that I was the lone voice of dissent. I was able to provide a diff that showed editors had supported me in a previous (albeit older) discussion, which he ignored. Thus, I feel that he has a habit of cherry-picking things when appealing to administrators.

My second concern relates to his edit history. Like most editors I know, he has a range of subjects that he is interested in and edits many pages within those subjects. However, his behaviour centres on a specific section of a specific page which is the only page he edits within that subject (though it is broadly related to other subjects he is interested in). He is free to edit what he chooses and when he chooses, but I feel that his actions are more about a personal agenda than actually acting in the interests of the article.

This is not the first time he has done this, and I have noticed that he often stays away from the article until I am trying to change something about it, in which case he shows up and opposes it. To be honest, it feels like a form of harrassment. I have a clear vision for what I think these articles can be and have worked well with other editors in implementing some of it. Many of the conventions of these articles are ones that I have developed. I am certainly not claiming ownership over these articles; I simply want to highlight that I am quite proud of what I have done with them and would like to show that I am invested in developing them. However, I feel that this editor is more interested in frustrating that rather than contributing to the article. As I said earlier, I think he abuses ANI to punish people who disagree with him, so deliberately opposing people in discussions seems a natural extension of that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mclarenfan17. Based on your description, this does sound like harassment. But without specific diffs, I can't offer you any additional insights. If you like, you may email me. Regards, FASTILY 06:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily,

I think I'll stick with editing this page for now. I'm posting this from an IP address because I usually edit from a mobile and it's easier to search user contributions, copy and paste from my laptop than from my mobile. The user in question is Tvx1, who you recently blocked for harassment and misrepresentation. His subsequent responses are entirely consistent with how he has behaved for years. For a bit of context, here are some of the things that he has done:

Digging up ANI archives that were over a year old
Directly lobbying to admins to review ANI cases involving me
Trying to get me blocked for edit-warring on a high-traffic page which he had no prior involvement with (so he had to be monitoring my contributions); the admin closed the report because the page was high-traffic and so could not justifiably be called edit-warring. Tvx1 was not happy with this and appealed directly to the admin to try and re-open the ANI report without going through the procedures (which another editor called him out on).
Other, uninvolved editors have pointed out his behaviour as he clearly wants me blocked.

Now, in the most recent incident, Tvx1 made an edit to the article that I alluded to—the one where it is the only article within the subject that he edits. He justified the edit as being based on a consensus that was formed on the talk page, but at the time of his editing, the discussion had been inactive for two months. I went to DRN and raised this because I felt that, as the "consensus" had been formed two months prior with no clear action at the time, it had stagnated; at the very least, he should have revived the discussion on the talk page to see if there was still any interest. In the DRN, I pointed out the existence of a previous discussion and the editor who agreed with me at the time. Tvx1's reply claimed that "all but one" editor (me) supported his proposal. He made no mention of the previous discussion and did not acknowledge the editor who had agreed with me at the time, even after I pointed it out.

In the discussion under dispute, I have made what I think are some pretty important points that need to be taken into consideration. Now, I am totally willing to discuss this; if someone can persuade me that these issues are not issues or that there is an alternative, then I can work with them. But this response, where his attitude is "it's all in your head" and here where he simply dismisses the point is how he "discusses" things. He is very careful to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy (I recall once, years ago—I'm thinking some time around 2010—where he openly admitted to baiting people into edit wars when he disagreed with them so that he could refer them to ANI; I went looking, but cannot find it), but I do feel harassed by it. If I am putting forward a proposal for a change, I quite literally have to ask myself "how will Tvx1 respond to this?" and try to address that in the argument that I make which I think is pretty extreme. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a case. Tvx1 has a long history of disruptive/battleground behavior and many instances of blatant lying/trolling/misrepresenting policy/wikilawyering. I am troubled to see that they have turned around and engaged in the same behavior after being unblocked. I note that you have not specified a desired outcome at ANI, but at minimum I would suggest requesting an IBAN. Regards, FASTILY 22:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sounds like you have a case."

Thanks for that. I'll head over to ANI some time in the next day or two. I have to think carefully about the next part because Tvx1 will come in claiming it's a bad faith accusation, that policy is on his side and try to claim this is me seeking petty revenge for "losing" a consensus discussion.

"I am troubled to see that they have turned around and engaged in the same behavior after being unblocked."

He never stopped. Every interaction with him goes like this and it has been that way for years. 2013 is the earliest instance that I remember, but it probably goes back to 2010. And he's gotten worse since then. I know of several editors who quit in frustration because of him (I am no angel in all of this; I simply refuse to give up and let him have his way to avoid a fight). Take a trip into the talk page of archives of WP:F1 and you'll see what I mean. He has good ideas, he knows the policies and he can find good solutions, but he refuses to acknowledge the merits of others' arguments. If I were to persuade you to change your mind on something, he would interpret that as you flip-flopping on the subject and paint you as unreliable.

"at minimum I would suggest requesting an IBAN"

I think that sounds like a good idea. It has been previously suggested by another editor (I think it's in one of the diffs), but I stupidly said no because I know what he can contribute when he's being productive. How, exactly, would an IBAN work? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IBAN for details. It's up to you to specify the exact conditions of the interaction ban, which you should propose at ANI. Upon success, an edit restriction will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Regards, FASTILY 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, he has already tried to take action, approaching another admin to try and portray me as giving untruth after untruth. It's his usual mix of "these are bad faith accusations when all I did is follow policy to the letter" and "it's just Mclarenfan17 trying to dodge responsibility" all while ignoring certain issues (like the way he has repeatedly referred me to ANI over nothing). Once again, he can only know about this if he is monitoring my contributions (and yes, I had to look at his contributions to know that but I was looking for other diffs to take to ANI). I know that admin is pretty active at ANI (as he has previously commented on ANI posts where Tvx1 has tried to get me blocked). I think he is setting something up so that when I do go to ANI he has already primed an admin, or is hoping the admin will take pre-emptive action to block me before I go to ANI. In short, this is more harrassing behaviour by Tvx1. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I have commented on EdJohnston's talk. Go ahead and start the ANI thread whenever you're ready. Regards, FASTILY 02:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted the ANI.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"no obvious use"

The bot marked for deletion a picture with the rationale "no obvious use" when in the English description it was reported, since the very first upload of the file, that it is representing an "hydrographic station in Venice, Italy, near Punta della Salute". It was used in the past as an illustrating image for the Italian article "it:Acqua alta, before being replaced by an higher resolution image. But how can a bot, unless moved by AI, understand "the use of a picture"? --Grigio60 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next step?

Hello Fastily. I just came across this situation. They didn't go through the refund process but I don't know if this is a WP:IAR situation or not. Whatever you decide is fine by me. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarnetteD. There are no restrictions on recreating drafts deleted via G13. OTOH, if it's evil, you should send it to WP:MfD. Regards, FASTILY 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply F. I was unclear on this and now I'm not :-) No matter how long I've edited there are new things to learn. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun Jacket Taiwan Japan Flags

Hello Fastily.

You deleted the file "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Top_Gun_Jacket_Taiwan_Japan_Flags.png" due to "Violates non-free content criterion #1" ("No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.")

Please specify the free equivalent you have found or that you believe could be created. Thank you.

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for deleting all those user space pages; Appreciated! Promethean (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]