User talk:Fastily

A little help?

Hi Fastily! I've come here for a little help as you were the admin who deleted two articles as I tagged them {{db-move}}. The issue is regarding three articles, Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas, Saathiya (TV series) and Saath Nibhaana Saathiya. The first article (Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas) was a 2004 TV series which was exclusively known by its full name, and should thus be located at "Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas". The third article (Saath Nibhaana Saathiya) is an extremely popular 2011 series which people call "Saathiya" and thus should be known as "Saathiya (TV series)". I had moved these yesterday, but Survir (talk · contribs) moved 'em back, saying that the first serial is referred to as Saathiya. If this was the case, a Google seach would atleast mention the 2004 serial somewhere. Yes, it refers to the Star Plus series as "Saath Nibhaana Saathiya" but even the network refers to the serial as "Saathiya" without "Saath Nibhaana" (logo; translation). I requested help from you because the matter went out of hands. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Give me a list of pages you need deleted to make way for you to revert moves and I'll delete them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble: Direct link for moving "Saathiya (TV series)"; new title should be "Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas" and reason "It is a series which was exclusively known by its full name, and should thus be located at "Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas"
Direct link for second move; new title should be "Saathiya (TV series)" and reason "This is an extremely popular 2011 series which people call "Saathiya" and thus should be known as "Saathiya (TV series)".
OR
You could move the pages saying "reverting original move by Survir, see talk page for further details." I have already posted some info on both the talks. As a side note, I believe move protection might help. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done I think I did what you asked, though, your instructions could have been clearer. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Here are some clearer instructions: Move Saathiya (TV series) to Saathiya – Pyar ka Naya Ehsaas; then, move Saath Nibhaana Saathiya to Saathiya (TV series); edit summaries — requested move by User:Avenue X at Cicero + see talk page.. Thanks and regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My recent block

I'm fairly disappointed. In spite of the 1RR technicality, you could have solved it in a friendlier way than a silent week long block, especially considering the amount of constructive edits I have made here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I have just been reverted after politely asking not to do that and continue the discussion I started on the talk page. I have reverted that, which counts for my first reversal of the day (the original edit was removal of contentious information). I would appreciate an honest response and possibly some help as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You knowingly breached 1RR, despite a warning on your page; I find it odd that you think you should be exempted from 1RR based on tenure. This matter has gone to WP:AE since your third edit after being released from your previous block was the same type of revert that led you to violate 1RR in the first place. FWIW, I'm afraid there's not much I can do for you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So when I remove contentious information and politely request editors not to reinsert before consensus is reached, it's OK for an editor to blatantly disregard that request, reinsert challenged information and reply to me with "nonsense" and "your comments merit no response", refusing to continue discussion. Furthermore, this editor seems to have reported oh so many editors that disagree with his agenda to the same noticeboard he reported me, after a series of tendentious edits as I just described. Logic, anyone? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Indian Football

Why did you delete History of Indian Football. Did you even look at the talk page of that article which explains why it should not be put down. All that work that I did to make that article is now gone. I DID NOT COPYRIGHT THAT ARTICLE!!! Once again if you looked at the talk page you would have seen that. --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G12 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again that stuff that was on that wikipedia page was made before that Hard Tackle page was created. THERE WAS NO COPYING! --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's get a second opinion shall we? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine we will then wait. Also just to clarify sorry if I sound really mad at you for deleting the article, I am not. I am just mad at the user that originally put it up for speedy deletion from the beginning. --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I had intended to edit this before it was deleted so I do have some knowledge of what's going on. According to the Duplication Detector Report prior to deletion, the longest passage of the article which duplicated the Hard Tackle page was fifteen words in the first section. Second place went to the link in the CSD template, and third (I think) was the phrase "goals for India". If fifteen words in a thousand-word article constitutes unambiguous copyright violation, the policy must have changed somewhat since I last read it. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bringing this back out the archive since everything seems to have gone quiet... any comments? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Please remove the offending text. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. I'm in the process of rewriting now; there doesn't seem to be too much to fix, so it shouldn't take long. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ughh sorry

Sorry about my tardiness :S I'm free when your busy and vice-versa, it's getting really annoying. Anyway, after some 2-3 weeks delay >.< I've answered your questions and I hope they are satisfactory. With Freedom of Panorama, I didn't read the individual country-by-country variants, though, if you wish I will. My sincerest apologies for the tardiness once again. Regards, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:16pm • 11:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'll review shortly. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian temple problems

I thought I'd drop a note here as you've dealt with some of the Indian temple articles I tagged for CSD (G12). I'm seeing a nasty pattern in these articles, and have requested help for investigation at Village pump. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll comment as necessary. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I apparently have misunderstood something or have used an incorrect designation. I am attempting to restore a photograph to a page which was cited as an F4, lack of licensing information. I have received written authorization from the photographer who took the picture and can produce that authorization allowing me to use the picture without restriction, which to my understanding makes it fair use. If I have misconstrued something, please tell me what I must do to properly submit the photograph. I have attempted to resubmit it with an expanded explanation of the permission for use. If something else is required, what might that be? Drphreddee (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#F4 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Dimitriadis 505.jpg

Dear Fastily, you have recently deleted the file File:Dimitriadis 505.jpg. However, in OTRS ticket #2011100110009351 there was sufficient permission for the file to be used on Wikipedia. I believe I put the OTRS Permission template on the image, but since it is deleted, I can not double check this. Can you check for me if you are still sure that the image should be deleted, and let me know if it was deleted by mistake, or if I did not mention the OTRS permission properly enough, or if there was even another reason? Thanks in advance for your coorporation, Edoderoo (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored and templates updated. Sorry for the inconvenience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

It looks like you deleted a category page I had thrown together, 'Category: Southeastern Conference soccer'. The page now says "(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)" Yep, that was me. I accidentally blanked the page. I still think we need this category though as soccer is becoming increasingly popular, the SEC Tournament and three teams already have their own wikipedia pages. (Texas A&M also has a page and will be joining the SEC next July) Sorry about the mix up, but if this page was deleted because I accidentally blanked the page, please put the page back up.

Thanks J1776 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and recreate it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a queue to suggest potential entries?

Is there a place to suggest an entry? Since I fail to see how my entry read as an ad, perhaps someone else could take a crack at it. (I was trying to refine it, but thought it was a reasonable stub. I looked for similar entries as a guide to refining it.) --Kevin Cole (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is the place to suggest or request entries. The problem with it is that it is indeed a queue... a very long queue. Some articles requested there don't get created for years. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You deleated my page (Addendorial) unfairly

I specifically stated it was UNOFFICIAL and I was only attempting to be creative. I am actually finding uses for it. I will not currently share them so they are not plagiarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenewmathemagician (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G3 -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. By the way, your made up term "addendorial" is actually called triangular number. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Files without fair use rationale

I started going through this list and tagging files without rationales, either template or raw, as F6 with AWB. Should I continue, or should I do this by hand (I am already reviewing every page in AWB)? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would use AWB, that is, unless you enjoy the carpal tunnel that results from tagging by hand ;) Cheers, FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a LOT of mistagged files, {{wrong license}}, and other more complex problems. Since I'm working in alphabetical order and being very lenient, can you look at the ones I'm skipping over? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly do that, time permitting. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Again,

Sorry to bug you again, but I ran into a truely terrible editor, User:The Last Angry Man who is disrupting several articles. He came off a permanant block just last month, he has since already been topic banned for being a poor editor at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, but has now moved to other articles with the same crap such as removing people from a list against consensus at Ex-gay movement, threatening to label Hamas a terrorist organization at August 2010 West Bank shooting attack, and actually editing Al-Qaeda to label them a terrorist group against WP:TERRORIST. So my question is what do I do about this editor, how do I get the people who blocked him first for being disruptive to block him again? Thanks, Public awareness (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I'm just going to stop editing outside the ref desk, wikipedia is just a terrible website. Thanks for your help though, Public awareness (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'm sorry to hear that. Hope you reconsider in the future. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Recently protected article

Hi, remember the article you recently protected for a week after an edit warring report I made[1], well the user I reported reverted to the version he likes as soon as the protection expired.[2]

So looks like he did not get the message that reverting is not the way to go. I don't understand how he originally did not get blocked after making 6-7 reverts and violating 3RR? -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You replaced several sections of text with rewritten sections which deleted all reliable sources from those sections opposing your point of view. And neither is your original research and/or original synthesis related to Lunde. Just because you do not like what a source states is not a reason enough to delete references to such a source like you did. Nor did you try to reach any kind of agreement in the talk page, instead you later on tried to use your 'sanitized' text sections as starting point instead of the original ones. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you are the one who did not consider what was discussed on the talk page. You just blindly reverted as soon as the protection expired.

Secondly, I did not delete "reliable sources"; I only removed your manipulations of the sourced information you don't like, along with your original research that you failed to find sources for. I also attempted to simplify the intro, make compromises, and keep the two opposing views in two separate paragraphs to avoid the manipulations you constantly insert.

If you really were itching to revert, you could of at least taken into account some of the issues discussed in talk, but no you blindly reverted to the version your like... -YMB29 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So if a reliable source disagrees with your point of view it is immediately a 'manipulation'? And it does not help your case to claim that you wouldn't have deleted reliable sources, that is blatantly obvious from your edits. Just because you do not like what reliable sources state is not a reason enough to delete references to them. And indeed you did simplify intro - you erased all text from there which opposed your point of view. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that I only left the text I like in the intro? That is a lie...

Manipulation is when there is a sourced statement and you add things like: "though several writers contradict this claim...", "but this is not widely supported...", "contrary to this claim..."

Anyway, the point is that your revert shows that you are going to continue to edit war. -YMB29 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You erased references (well sourced in several places of the article) as well as all mentions that fighting ended in Finnish victory and replaced it with something else. If attacker fails in its attack that is a victory for the defender is it not? Manipulation would be to make a source state something that it did not actually do. Those things you mention are criticism laid just against the comments presented - and they all reliable sources with them until you deleted them. If it is an edit war you should remember that one cant do such a thing on his own, instead some one else (in this case you) is then edit warring just as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well your revert speaks for itself...

Those "criticisms" you insert are just part of your attempt to make the opposite view look fringe or wrong. They are not well placed, repetitive, and/or are your own original research. Would you like me to do that after every sentence of the pro-Finnish view? -YMB29 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlike your comments regarding Lunde none of the entries lacked reliable sources. So they most definitely were not original research - again unlike your claims regarding Lunde. That they may not have been well placed is editing question, not deletion like you did it. Repetitive nature preexisted in the text, the comments only made it more obvious. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah Ejaz

How will u know that Pakistani model Abdullah Ejaz is notable. Is the website of Fashion Central not enough for you and Pakistani websites are not reliable for you. If all this is true then how will you recognize a notable person is notable for Wikipedia if Pakistani websites are not reliable.--Jozoisis (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you already recreated the article, I'm really not sure why you're messaging me... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The men who will not be blamed for nothing

Why were they deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.122.194 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Photo?

The National Archives sent an e-mail to Wikipedia clearly stating that SS record scans were public and free to use. The archivist at NARA alerted me this morning that he never got any reply. Here is a copy of his original e-mail (censored to remove personal contact info)

Dear Wikipedia-

I was asked by a researcher to e-mail your organization concerning the display of SS record copies on your website. SS records are maintained at the National Archives II complex in College Park, Maryland and are open to the public for review and copying. Copies of these records are not under any copyright protection that I am aware of and my understanding is that researchers may utilize them as they see fit, provided the National Archives is cited as the source. For the specific laws and legal background of the National Archives Records at College Park, you may contact the address below for further assistance:

National Archives and Records Administration

ATTN: Archives II Reference Section (NWCT2R)

8601 Adelphi Road, Room 2400

College Park, MD 20740-6001

I hope this e-mail is of use to you. Feel free to contact me with any further questions or you may direct inquires to the address below.

I did my part and had someone contact this website to confirm the copyright. I don't think that image should not have been deleted. Will you restore it? -OberRanks (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)