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)

Alright, that's better. Done now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man! Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've created a temporary disambiguation page while these contributors discuss the naming issues. User:Survir came to my page with the same kind of request. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 14 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)

No, you placed them to disrupt the opposing view that you don't like.

You insert obvious OR into the article, including your "analysis" of Baryshnikov and Lunde, and then pretend that it is sourced... All you are doing is censoring information that you don't like. -YMB29 (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion though they were not mean to disrupt anything, only to show that the information provided by Baryshnikov may not have been the universal truth like you had presented it. And regardless of your claims those comments were sourced unlike your claims regarding Lunde & 'Finnish historiography' which were original research or original synthesis from your part. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one claiming that Lunde proves Baryshnikov wrong just because he is not Finnish... So where is your source for this?

No one is saying that Baryshnikov is the universal truth. Actually you have the paragraph where the Finnish views are presented as facts. Then you insert the same views in the paragraph that has the non-Finnish views to try to discredit the non-Finnish views. You want me to do the samething? -YMB29 (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, are you going to at least warn him? The fact that he violated 3RR and reverted right after your protection expired does not show you anything? -YMB29 (talk) 16:58, 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)

I agree! As a fan of their music, I'm curious to know as well! Amber, the Michigan Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.163.178 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• According to deletion log, G8: Redirect to deleted or nonexistent page. There WAS an article at some point, and the last page in the redirect/rename/move change list gets "(Expired PROD, concern was: )" which is, obviously, a dead end. Any further info? --Battlemonk (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Could someone link the page in question? It's unclear what is being referred to. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The page is The Men That Will Not Be Blamed for Nothing. There is no reason shown for the PROD. Basically, we'd like the page back. --Jtle515 (talk) 19:17, 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)

What Wikipedia email did he send this message to? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Project Trains no image plaque

Your efforts to adjust the file name of railroad-related articles with the plaque File:Project Trains no image.png does nothing other than leave a markup of the intended image size. I suggest you cease these types of edits. ----DanTD (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not expect or foresee a redirect to be used in that fashion. Totally fooled the semi-automated script I've been using. Thanks for cleaning up -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. We're all WP:AGF here,... or at least I am. ----DanTD (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Riverside-La Sierra (Metrolink station)

This edit [3] replaced the "Project Trains no image.png" (please supply a photo template) with a red "250px". Without looking at other edits you did, I think the same result exists with many other edits. Mistake? --S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I already mentioned this to him in the message above, and I believe it is a mistake. ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

#Project Trains no image plaque -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WeVideo - I'll edit the part where it was infringing copyright!

Hi, my entry for WeVideo was deleted because of copyright infringement of a document that I created, and didn't realize was up on WeVideo's actual website. I'd like to re-submit a WeVideo entry but with editing the wording so as not to be infringing on copyright. I'd like my file back please if you still have it. Thanks, SocialRadiusOly — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialRadiusOly (talk • contribs) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G12 This page cannot be returned for legal reasons. Sorry. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Help please!

Hello, I have some questions. One is what is rollback or a rollback right? I have the option for it when I am reverting vandals. Also what is tagging? What does it do and where i it shown? I am new to this so I don't know how it works. Like how you get back to me but whatever. Can you please help? ChocolateWolf (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You can read about Rollback here. When you tag a page, you add a template to it. Looks like you also tried to use twinkle. Currently, Twinkle is supported on Mozilla Firefox, Chrome, and Safari; it won't work on Internet Explorer -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OTRS Pending on a page (Sonita Lontoh) you deleted due to G12 reason

Hello Fastily,

I am just made aware of a page created recently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonita_Lontoh) that you deleted on October 13, 2011 at 07:41 am due to G12: Unambigious copyright infringement of http://www.newscertified.com/experts/Sonita-Lontoh). I am the owner of the copyrighted materials and have sent my granting the permission to copy material already online to the permissions-en@wikimedia.org email address. I am writing this message on your talk page to post the {{OTRS pending}} notice because there is no discussion page as the article has been deleted. I am new to wikipedia, so please let me know if there is more I need to do to grant the permission correctly. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

If that is the case, then the page will be restored with the appropriate templates once the email has been processed by an OTRS rep. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Solar eclipse charts?!

Something very bad was done, large scale deletion of solar eclipse charts, like from Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_1560, commented as (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)!?!?!?! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like file extension renamed?

13:37, 13 October 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "File:SE1560Aug21T.png" ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)

18:59, 31 May 2010 Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) moved File:SE1560Aug21T.png to File:SE1560Aug21T.gif ‎ (more suitable name) (revert)

Is there any automatic conversion of links? Luckily most are linked in a few templates: like Template:Solareclipse155_db, but need care to hand-edit only the ones deleted/renamed. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider creating a standard infobox for solar eclipse articles? The templates in the series "Template:Solareclipse### db" were confusing and difficult to read for me, and are likely impossible for newbies to read. Since you obviously used a bot to perform your mass article and template creations, I doubt it would be difficult for you to write another bot to make this change. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use a bot to generate the _db files. They were exported from a spreadsheet. There's no automation available to me to determine which ones have been renamed. p.s. Isn't this a "standard infobox" Template:Infobox_Solar_eclipse2 SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So, should I assume you are going to do nothing to fix the dozens of solar eclipse articles whose images have been deleted/renamed, and they'll remain broken for months until I decide to do it? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this is the full list, File:SE1878Jul29T.gif, File:SE1875Apr06T.gif, File:SE1871Dec12T.gif, File:SE1874Apr16T.gif, File:SE1870Dec22T.gif, File:SE1868Aug18T.gif, File:SE1867Aug29T.gif, File:SE1865Apr25T.gif, File:SE1860Jul18T.gif, File:SE1857Mar25T.gif, File:SE1853Nov30T.gif, File:SE1854May26A.gif, File:SE1842Jul08T.gif, File:SE1820Sep07A.gif, File:SE1824Jun26T.gif, File:SE1816Nov19T.gif, File:SE1806Jun16T.gif, File:SE1780Oct27T.gif, File:SE1766Feb09T.gif, File:SE1778Jun24T.gif, File:SE1724May22T.gif, File:SE1715May03T.gif, File:SE1652Apr08T.gif, File:SE1598Mar07T.gif, File:SE1560Aug21T.gif, I downloaded the images, converted to PNG and reuploaded the new ones to commons. I think this should fix the problem, although eclipse articles don't seem to update missing images without editing, maybe they'll fresh later on their own. I think this is a better solution than referencing gifs so there won't be confusion of some eclipse chart files being png and some being gif. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

File Maintenance: Illumina.jpg to BW image of Edit Centric.jpg - Moves and Deletions

The image that you just deleted was previously moved by User:FleetCommand to another filename, at 10:27 UTC yesterday. Since you deleted the "illumina.jpg" file, (which I'm trying to understand how that was done since it was already moved, unless a "move" in Wikipedia is actually more like a "copy"...) what should be done with the "moved" file? Edit Centric ^talk 20:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving a file leaves behind a redirect. Unlike the case with articles, when a file redirect has no links to it, it may be deleted for maintenance/housekeeping reasons. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 21:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what I'm asking is what should be done about the current file on Wikipedia, since it's still technically an orphaned image. Do I need to tag it for deletion before you can delete it? I'm perfectly agreeable to its deletion, since it would free up server space and clean up Wikipedia... Edit Centric ^talk 22:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, yes, but since you explicitly requested deletion here, I've deleted it for you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Edit Centric ^talk 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:OTAShirt-Back.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:OTAShirt-Back.png. 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. Belg4mit (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Harold Jensen

could you please undelete the Jensen article? I never saw the prod notice or I would have improved the article. Jensen DOES meet college athlete notability guidelines, specifically in that he has "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" - both when he played and since. Jensen is one of the classic figures in college basketball history and had a perfect game in the 1985 NCAA final - one of the biggest upsets in sports history. He has gotten a lot of press since for that reason. I'd be happy to document all this in his article but would prefer not to start over. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I will update the article ASAP. Hopefully tomorrow evening. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz

I noticed you just deleted SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz, which was a valid redirect. How is that eligible for deletion under CSD criteria G8? Also, it looked like the page was serving as the attribution history for a merge, so if it stays deleeted you you will need to revdel the portions of the target page that were merged in as without attribution it is a copyright violation. Monty₈₄₅ 00:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Restored. Not sure how that happened. And which pages need to be histmerged? If need be, I'll do it. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not technically eligible for a histmerge, as the pages existed side by side for a time, so I think it just gets the merge notice on the talk page. You may also want to check the other Auschwitz related G8 deletions you made at the same time, SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz is the only one I know shouldn't have been deleted, but given the similarity in names and deletion reason, worth checking. Talk:SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz also had the deletion contested and a couple comments on the merge. Monty₈₄₅ 00:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Galveston Pirate SC should be revived

It seems the Galveston Pirate SC page was deleted today after a deletion discussion. However, the club's move to the US NPSL was just announced yesterday: http://www.npsl.info/home/570877.html Please consider restoring the page. (Also, I realize there's a series of forms I should have submitted for this request, but MY GOD, what a bureaucratic nightmare that is. It's just a single wikipedia page about a 4th-tier soccer club. Who has the time for all that red tape?) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcrumley (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G4 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

VMF logo.png

Hello,

I noticed that you have mistakenly deleted the file "VMF logo.png", for the reason of "F9: Media file copyright violation without fair use or credible claim of permission."

I must notify you that I have the explicit permission of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine - Stara Zagora to create and edit their Wikipedia page, as well upload any pictures related to this organisation at my discretion.

I request that the file be restored the way it was.

Is there anything that has to be done in order to avoid such misunderstandings in the future? How can I indicate (as clearly as possible) that the file is used with permission?

Demon! (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries which you can fill out and email to the OTRS team. Instructions are on the linked page. That is the best option. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Noozgroop

Sorry to bother you about this again but this user's going through ever single Taylor Swift article and vandalizing them and I've reverted their edits on Taylor Swift (album) twice and gave them a warning on their talk page and I'm afraid to do anything more as a third revert on my part can be considered edit-warring even though I'm reverting vandalism. And from the looks of the user's talk page they seem to do disruptive editing a lot on here. Can you help? JamesAlan1986 *^talk 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've warned the user. If the continue to vandalize, report to WP:AIV, or WP:ANI (which may be more appropriate in this case. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and congrats! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cakebreak Cellars

This is my first time writing a Wikipedia article and I'd like to contribute more back to you guys than just spelling corrections.

Can you guys just let me edit the page w/o destroying all my work? I planned on SIGNIFICANTLY changing it over the weekend. It's going to get very annoying if every time I try to post things about wineries that I visit up in Napa the articles go missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robd003 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G11 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong on the internet

So I'm back, I need you to look at Talk:Al-Qaeda under "Terrorist?". A few editors are trying to ignore WP:Terrorist and label the organization as a terrorist group. At the top of the talk page it even says "Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying." This was not enough for these individuals, so I provided sources which show many notable western people and organizations do not think they are a terrorist group but conclude they are an insurgent group. Please put an end to this, keep opinions and designations attributed. Thanks, Public awareness (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaduvur Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple

Hi,

 You have deleted the page "Vaduvur Sri Kothandaramaswamy Temple". 

the content is originally created by me and the website http://srivaishnava.tv/ency/abhmansthlms/vaduvur.html) just copied and posted the content recently. Also, I already own a google site having the same information for more than 6 months and being visited by over 1500 people.

Kindly re-instate the wiki page and I will contact the owner of http://srivaishnava.tv/ency/abhmansthlms/vaduvur.html to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh.parthasarathy (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G12 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Question for you.

At [4]. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to reconsider

Actually, you need to remove this message you left on User:Noozgroup's talk page. He was following MOS and the vandal warning given to him by User:JamesAlan1986 was out of line. So was this complaint JamesAlan made to you. I've left a message on his page. Moriori (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)