User talk:Fastily

IP hopping vandal

Don't know if it's faster to do this here, or via AIV, but our IP jumping vandal who loves to make bogus AIV reports is back again, this time as 207.69.137.7. Majorclanger (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way works. If the disruption continues, please let me know and I'll see if a rangeblock is applicable. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir! He's on Earthlink, but repeatedly gets the same handful of IPs. I haven't checked for clustering of the addresses, but on the face, there's a pretty large range. Majorclanger (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a rangeblock may be feasible. Here's the IPs he's used since I've been monitoring (pardon the broken indentation):

207.69.137.7
207.69.137.10
207.69.137.20
207.69.137.23
207.69.137.24
207.69.137.27
207.69.139.138
207.69.139.142
207.69.139.144
207.69.139.146
207.69.139.147
207.69.139.155
207.69.140.22

209.86.226.21
209.86.226.23
209.86.226.24
209.86.226.25
209.86.226.50
209.86.226.56
209.86.226.61

And he back again now at 207.69.139.135. Majorclanger (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just rangeblocked 209.86.226.0/26 and 207.69.136.0/21. If our IP hopping vandal keeps coming back, whack-a-mole is fine by me. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I had might as well get it on record that he's got a much-less-used secondary connection from a different ISP. IPs used from there include 4.226.228.232 and 4.226.111.91. If the usage of these 4.226es picks up in the wake of the rangeblock, I'll probably just bring them to your attention. Majorclanger (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Thank you for bringing the vandal to my attention. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay i admit it, It was me, I did bad edits, I'm really sorry. Can you forgive me Fastily 4.226.111.198 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, he's moved on to using the other account, though one block per day seems to stop him. Here are the IPs I know of so far, all of which are from the same ISP:

4.90.0.195

4.90.4.254

4.90.7.153

4.226.111.79

4.226.111.91

4.226.111.198

4.226.228.163

4.226.228.232

I don't know how many you need for a second rangeblock, but clearly patterns seem to be emerging already... I'll append any further ones to the list above. Majorclanger (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just rangeblocked 4.90.4.0/22, 4.226.228.128/25, 4.226.111.0/24. Thanks for the update. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Fastily, I apologize for block evasion, Unblock 4.90.4.0/22, 4.226.228.128/25 and 4.226.111.0/24, and can you forgive me? 4.90.0.195 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's another one I've added to the list. Not exactly good at this, is he? Majorclanger (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, if it starts becoming a problem, please let me know. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bacio Divino

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bacio Divino. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Ilya Kovalchuk

Been another false edit since you denied the semi-protect. I gather they'll be a bunch more if its not protected. That's how these pages of free agent athletes tend to work. Most IPS/new users don't edit these pages maliciously as they want to be the one to break the news, but it becomes very disruptive and bad for the page to keep changing. I hope I'm wrong in this case, but the proof is in the pudding, haha. --Airtuna08 (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pages are generally not preemptively protected. If the vandalism picks up, please make another request at WP:RFPP or leave me a note on my talk and I'll deal with the vandalism. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand they generally aren't, but this is just a one,two week period where every user and their mother comes on to edit in new speculation without the correct sources. I re-listed it because there have been two more changes since the rejection 12 hours or so ago. --Airtuna08 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Hello, I am kindly requesting that you grant me rollback rights. I have learned from previous mistakes with Wikipedia and have taken time to reflect and improve on these problems. I now think I am ready to use the rollback tool. I have read the vandalism guide and know the difference between good and bad faith edits.

Thank you --Ratinator·Talk 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fastily, you may want to be aware of this: [1], [2], [3]. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. I just noticed that :/ Ratinator, I agree with all the other administrators who have declined your requests. A couple weeks of solid work reverting vandalism at Special:RecentChanges would be desirable. Once you've done that, please request the tool again, but please don't engage in forum shopping. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

File:LBJ MIA.jpg

How is the description at Getty not enough? It's rights-managed (restrictions on usage, such as limitations on size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution) and copyright 2010 Getty Images. It obviously wouldn't pass any fair use scenarios. What do I need to provide so that we can get rid of blatant copyright material? Does Getty often make an exception to grant Wikipedia free use of it's copyright images? --Onorem♠Dil 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that the file is a press agency photo. A copyright violation only exists when an uploader claims work they did not create as their own OR when an uploader claims blatantly non-free/Copyrighted media under a free license. In the case of File:LBJ MIA.jpg, neither condition has been met, so I declined your speedy. Also, please note that files from press images are not prohibited on Wikipedia; their use is only strongly discouraged. The reason for use of press agency photos is outlined at WP:NFC#UUI, point 6. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

F9 has 4 conditions from what I see on the template.

is copied from X, which does not have a license compatible with WikipediaY

no credible assertion that the file is public domainY

no credible assertion that the file is fair-useY

no credible assertion that the file is available under a free licenseY

Process for the sake of process I guess, but I'm still at a loss. --Onorem♠Dil 18:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just friendly FYI: Getty images can be claimed under fair use with this tag. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be. This image wasn't, so that has no impact on point 3. I'm sick and medicated, so I'm probably taking this poorly. It just seems silly to leave it up for a week when the outcome is obvious. --Onorem♠Dil 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

deletion of coffeetom/coffeeexpressco

Fastily: this is not a case of blatant advertising. I was told when I first created the article that I didn't supply verifiable references. I have now done that. There is a lengthy article in the Ann Arbor Observer, June, 1993, by Peter Ephross, titled Tom Isaia's Coffee Express. Another (of many) appeared in a January 11, 1995 issue of the Detroit Free Press, by Patty LaNoue Stearns, called High on the Good Stuff.

Coffee Express impacted the early days of the nascent specialty coffee industry and I am providing references to substantiate this. While I'm not adept at providing content to Wikipedia, I would appreciate help and suggestions as opposed to summarily deleting everything I'm attempting.

Thank you.

Coffeetom (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Tom Isaia

Please undelete article so I can work with you or other Wiki editors to make it acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeetom (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have a conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing about a subject/entity that you are closely affiliated with; it will be very difficult, if not impossible to avoid bias of any sort. You're welcome to resubmit your article, but please be sure it complies with WP:ADS, WP:MOS, WP:GNG. Otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll have someone else write the article. Can you make it available to re edit and re write? Thanks again for the help. Coffeetom (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)coffeetom

Training

I'm ready for your response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do - I'll get to it asap. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

deleted images question

Hi, I've noticed you deleted some images that were in an article I wrote [4] under F11 which seems was indeed the case. I was just wondering if you could tell me who the original uploader of these images was so that I could contact them and see if the authorship/copyright status of the pics can be established. Because the images have been deleted I don't know how to check who it was. Thank you very much in advance.radek (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is User:Krzysztoflew. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This user might not be right for Reviewer

I'm not trying to be a bother, but this user has made only 45 article edits, some of which have been reverted, including adding a picture of some bananas to HIV. You decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the HIV bananas incident was awhile ago. Admins have been instructed to assign the reviewer right on a fairly liberal basis, due to the fact that before the PC trial began, all autoconfirmed users could edit semi-protected articles. At the moment, I can't see anything seriously wrong with the user's edits, but if they start becoming disruptive, I'll revoke the right. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

comment

can you please comment here [5] thank you Aisha9152 (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to say I think you are doing a good job WRFEC (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

FPP to Genesis Creation Narrative

You recently protected the Genesis Creation Narrative page for 1 week per User:Gniniv's request. Please note that this user is a disruptive editor who has a history of requesting full page protection when his edits are reverted. He's more than once threatened to do this repeatedly until his POV is added to an article. He tries to use page protection not to stop legitimate edit warring, but as a bargaining chip when his own edits oppose consensus. If you have the time, could you take a closer look into this issue? Thank so much! Jess ^talk _cs 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed notice that. Gniniv's edits at Genesis creation narrative were reverted before I protected. Is that going to be a problem? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I came across clearly. I'm not so much concerned about the edits as I am about the precedent being set here. Gniniv has a history (which he's repeating here) of adding POV content to articles, which gets reverted for good cause by other editors, and then requesting disruptive administrative action 'in revenge'. This includes repeatedly nominating articles for GA delisting many times in a row, and protecting pages so other editors can't make legitimate contributions. His threats to repeatedly page protect articles until his demands are met (here) are a good example of this. Surely this violates disruptive editing policies, no? I appreciate you taking the time to respond! Jess ^talk _cs 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, I've unprotected the page. Please consider leaving Gniniv a warning, informing him that his disruptive editing, threats, edit warring, and forum shopping will not be tolerated. If he continues his disruptive editing spree in spite of a warning, let me know and I'll block as necessary. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv is a problematic editor who is pushing a YEC POV and refusing to compromise, listen or adjust his editing to be in compliance with established protocols. He has a LONG (many months) history of this type of behavior, either abandoning a page when his edits are not accepted or trying to hold it hostage with a FPP. Please refer to my talk page (User_talk:Raeky#What_do_you_think_of_this.3F) where I've been having a conservation with admin Dougweller about his recent activities. This user can safely be classified as a troll, imho (and others). By granting his FPP request, your just aiding in his disruptive behavior. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was reversed, didn't see that due to an EC. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am curious if there is another route I can take to resolve my conflicts with the editors of these articles. It seems that protecting the article to prevent edit war is not acceptable. The method I have been given is to protect an article that has strong conflict to prevent edit warring, and then discuss the problem. Is there a different method I could use?--Gniniv 02:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to consider dispute resolution. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fastily: Thanks so much for your time on this issue! I've done as you've requested.

@Gniniv This isn't really the place for that discussion. One is already taking place on Raeky's talk page, so I will continue it there. Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do!--Gniniv (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Something Else

I am sending you the consent letter on the "Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng" for the below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90inh_Xu%C3%A2n_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

I hereby affirm that [I, Quan X DINH am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Judge Đinh Xuân Quảng- (see http: above) the work to be released in detail). I agree to release that work into the public domain. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Quan X Dinh the creator of the work qdinh2@yahoo.com 2221 N. Heliotrope, Santa Ana, CA 92706 – Tel: 714-972-1126] (to allow future verification of authenticity) [Santa Ana, CA 92707 June 27, 2010]

Please advise what step I should take next to have the picture reappear on the article. Thanks, Ngoc ly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngoc ly (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[6] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Univeristy College (KLMU)

Hi, Fastily.

I saw this page Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Univeristy College (KLMU) in the new pages listing today and I reviewed it. After I tagged the page with a expanding tag, the page was added to my watchlist automatically. Well, then I saw where you deleted the same page yesterday. Soooo. I dunno. Is it still supposed to be deleted? I was curious about this after I saw that it was deleted yesterday and recreated today. O_o; Thanks! Tamer_of_Hope talk 03:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The version of the page created yesterday was a copyright violation. Today, it is an advert. I've deleted the page again. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :] Tamer_of_Hope talk 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of G11 deleted articles

Hello. Just letting you know per our previous discussion that Kevin Feng and JT Tran have again been recreated after G11 deletions last week, this time with a different editor Scribesunlimited (talk · contribs). IMO, they still seem like advertising/promotional material. Please have a look when you have a chance. They are currently tagged as a new, unreviewed article. I wasn't sure if such articles could still be nominated for deletion? Thanks.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the pages and salted to prevent recreation. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to have to do that, but the editor(s) seem to be trying very hard to keep those articles up, but not trying to make them neutral. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My work is not disruptive

I am trying to do the job that was assigned to me. :-(

I have gone over this article with a fine tooth comb, and I have NOT advertised anything.

Why are you calling my edits "disruptive"?

Regards,

Paul Scribesunlimited (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:ADS and WP:COI. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA and WP:AIV

Just reported some users at WP:UAA and WP:AIV, there are also some other users that have been reported too. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 06:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The pages look pretty clean at the moment. But thanks for letting me know. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

AAC Account Creation Interface

I applied for the interface and was rejected on it. You told me I need to hit the 6 accounts per day for accountcreator, is there another way to create accounts or if the tool is the only way can you please approve my account so I can start. Joe Gazz84 (user)•(talk)•(contribs) 10:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may find Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide useful. The Account Creator right is granted to users who are active in this area. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Editing

"Please see WP:ADS and WP:COI. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 06:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)"

I want to address this. I have checked this article for any advertising, and could find nothing to indicate this. Please explain where you see the violation.

Regards,

Scribesunlimited (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Editing

Let me please explain about the conflict of interest claim. I run a writing company, and am frequently assigned to write articles by third parties. There is NO conflict of interest if I am paid by a freelance company to complete an assignment given to me. I have never met these individuals, and until I was given the assignment, I had never heard of them.

There is no conflict of interest here, and I need to know what else is wrong with my work, so it can be quickly fixed and completed.

I am being paid a substantial amount of money to get this done, and you are impeding it.

Regards,

Scribesunlimited (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have referred your case to the Wikipedia community at WP:ANI#Paid_Editing, as, I'm not exactly sure how I should proceed at this point. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I am trying to get my article approved and I was hoping I could send it to you and get some pointers? Thanks

dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepjam1 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. It could use some more work in terms of cleanup so I'll tag it as such. However, it isn't a blatant advert so it shouldn't be deleted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment Software Association of Canada

I'm trying to write an Article for the Entertainment Software Association of Canada which was deleted by you the otherday for infringing copyright. However, the content in question was from our own website, and was our own work. I am attempting to recreate a page for this association on wikipedia and have changed the wording and content and would like to publish it. However it has asked that I talk to you about it first. Sthomps6 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may find WP:DCP helpful. Company websites are almost always copyrighted (frankly, it would be foolhardy to release corporate property under a free license) and should not be copy+pasted onto Wikipedia, which licenses all text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and GFDL. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah so Ive been working with some other people to make my article more acceptable...can you help out? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepjam1 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Peace Centre - deletion of

Dear sir

I am a representative of the Peace Centre in Warrington, England. The Peace Centre is a registered charity set up following the killing of 2 children in Warrington by the IRA in 1993. It is a charity and its objectives are purely charitable and non profit making. It has many significant patrons who include John Major (former UK Prime Minister) and Emma Thompson (actress).

I have reviewed many other charitable organisations who have a presence in Wikipedia and they follow the same format as the page I created. You are therefore entirely wrong and it is inappropriate to delete this page on the basis of advertising. Please refer to the following webpage for further information on this charity: http://www.foundation4peace.org/

I would be grateful if you could revert to me with reasons as to why you have deleted the page. If you can suggest changes I will be happy to incorporate them. However, ultimately, I believe you are wrong to delete it.

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadianm (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hadianm#Re:Peace Centre - deletion of -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting IP talk pages

I'm curious why you consider this to be lacking "meaningful, comprehensible content related to Wikipedia". Are you reviewing these individually or have you used a mass-deletion script? If it's, the latter this course of action is ill-advised (as is using a script to clean Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages without first paying mind to the important caveats at the top of the page). See also relevant discussion here. –xeno^talk 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a fairly weak example of seriously meaningful content. An old quick reminder perhaps, but not anything with historical content that would be horribly detrimental if deleted. And secondly, if it helps to know, yes, I have painstakingly reviewed each IP talk page. That's the difference between what I'm doing and what MZMcBride did - he neither checked what he had his bot delete nor was he responsive to complaints. If you don't trust my judgment, I invite you to waste time and double check each talk page I just deleted. Frankly, if letting backlogs sit and marinate is your idea of maintaining the encyclopedia, well go for it; but please don't impede the way of those who actually want to do the tedious work no one else wants to do of checking, verifying, and cleaning the project. It's beyond me why you're constantly soliciting me for doing the exact same damn work other people are doing. Take this for example. I sometimes don't think it's even worth my time and energy to do this work if this is the bullshit I'm going to get as a reward for my work. Sincerely, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems we simply differ on whether deleting a good faith message regarding content from one IP to another made less than 2 months ago is appropriate.

I hadn't noticed Tiptoety had conducted a similar mass-deletion, since none of the pages he deleted were on my watchlist.

For what it's worth, I don't think that this is a particularly pressing backlog (which is why I made this edit some time ago); but if you are reviewing them, please forgive the interruption. I only ask because I know that some folks (in particular, those involved with the spam project) don't like seeing these deleted when the individual was blocked for spamming, and the like. –xeno^talk 20:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have now made a mistake

Sending my issue to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Paid_Editing does no good whatsoever. Now I am made to feel like I'm a "Red herring", and a liar.

While I appreciate your "help", all you've managed to do is cause more problems, and my next step will be arbitration - and if that is not solved, I will be billing Wikipedia $150.00 for my time, and the money I should have received for this project.

Instead of helping me and pointing out what needs to be done with my article, your only solution is to send me to the wolves.

Thank you very much.

Scribesunlimited (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)