User talk:Fastily

Deletion of Horiba article

I feel that the Horiba page, which was deleted, contained a lot of useful information such as its affiliation with Hitachi and its major lines of business, information that I feel is interesting and useful to know. I think the "blatant self-promotion" parts could be readily fixed, and would be prepared to give it a go. Other company articles (that have not been deleted) have lots of info. about company sports teams and the like which really have nothing to do with the company business at all. LittleBen (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore a copy to your userspace. How does that sound? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks In Advance! LittleBen (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC). I have created the subpage /Horiba. LittleBen (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your patience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you have time to review my edited version. If OK then please restore to Horiba, otherwise I can add links to refs. first or edit further if preferable. Best regards. LittleBen (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cit helper

The reason I hadn't given that user rollback permissions was because some of his reverts I had seen were incorrect- such as [1] and [2]- entirely correct edits that he reverted, and especially this, where he returned a BLP issue to an article without fixing it. (And that was just the things he shouldn't have reverted- not counting the revertible stuff that wasn't vandalism he labelled as such... but I blame the Stiki tool for that, more than him.) I really wanted to see if he would make the same mistakes with a more controllable tool, like Twinkle, before letting him run on Huggle. I'm somewhat aggravated that he even mentioned coming to my talk page, and my reply, and you went ahead and granted him the rights anyway- it will only encourage such WP:PARENT behaviour in the future. Courcelles (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing this user's request, the reverts I sampled looked perfectly fine to me. I only found the discussion you cited above after digging around just now, and I see what you are referring to. If you would like me to redact Cit helper's rollback rights so you can restore them on Monday, please let me know and I'll do that. However, I feel that a certain degree of AGF and common courtesy are not present here :/ Either way, let me know if you need me to take action. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need- at this point he can just be monitored for more reverts like those; which can likely be blamed more on the clumsy STiki interface than him. I was just a little peeved that he admitted on WP:PERM/R that he was admin-shopping. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making vandalism. i'm correcting Reyrefran. A user who insist that he is right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report user Reyrefran for saying bad words such as "asshole".

(talk page stalker) No comment on either parties' edits, but I've warned Reyrefran that edit summaries like this one are unacceptable. TFOWR 11:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I report user saying bad words such "asshole'. The user also reported me that I commit vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs)

Consider them reported - I've warned them that describing other editors in such a way is not acceptable, it's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If they repeat it you should report them to WP:WQA, who deal with complaints like this. Alternatively, let me know and I will block them. TFOWR 11:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The anon IP is back at Kiev and Lviv

User:87.210.232.221 is back to attacking (without evidence) Kiev and Lviv and pushing his/her private POV. --Taivo (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that both articles are currently fully protected due to the content dispute. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

hello yes you might as well delete the RfA thanks --Jsutton666 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thank you for being upfront about it. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fastily. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple fair use rationales

Could you give me an opinion on File:STObsession.jpg? The fair-use rationale sort of slips in a second article in the body of the text. I think the use is reasonable, but should there be a second template added to make the separate rationale clear? I've never actually seen an example of how to properly do it. I'll add one if you think that's the best course of action.--~T P W 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A second set of fair use rationale justifying the file's use in Redshirt (character) should be added just below the fair use rationale justifying the file's use in Obsession (Star Trek: The Original Series). The appropriate policy page is at WP:NFCC#10c, if you're interested. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or are in need of assistance! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the exact requirements at WP:NFCC#10c weren't 100% clear, but that was my guess. Now that I'm thinking "images" I see problems everywhere!--~T P W 02:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFA/Youndbuckerz

I'm not a new user. I have been on here for about 3 or 4 years editing wikipedia and no dont delete the request for admin. Youndbuckerz (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, at your current standing, I'm doubtful you'll be successful. If you've heeded my warning and are absolutely this is sure what you want, let me know and we can proceed. However, I am strongly discouraging you from running. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, im sure i will go alright. The more admins the better. Youndbuckerz (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Would you like me to transclude (aka submit for formal review) your RfA? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do so. Youndbuckerz (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then - you can see it at WP:RFA#Youndbuckerz. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question what do i have to as an administrator to i have to spend most of my day on wikipedia editing articles making improvements, stopping vandalism, and what advantages do i have than normal users, do i have the ability to block users, delete pages? please answer i will maybe try again in a couple of months.Youndbuckerz (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ADMIN; it describes the technical aspects and the conduct that is expected of administrators. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of the Hebrews

I am the Anon from the Okanagan who you accused of vandalism. All my edits are good faith edits. Please explain. 207.81.154.64 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er...sorry? Can you link some discussions/pages/ect? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Gospel of the Hebrews is that there are two passionate groups. One believes that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew ie (most Christians). The other group of scholars believe that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of the Hebrews. The problem has been to get this article written from a neutral point of view. - - 207.81.154.64 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I think we need Admin help![reply]

Premature candidates

Fastily, by my count I see you've transcluded nine of these premature RFAs and every one was closed within a few hours. Perhaps if we just left the abandoned RFAs alone, we might save a lot of time, and possibly the candidate unnecessary stress? –xeno^talk 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine of several hundred users I have been unable to successfully convince otherwise. I think it is only fair however, to inform and guide newbies who create RfAs that they do not stand a chance of passing RfA. While I see the merit of your approach, I do not agree with shelving a problem for later. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps you could stop transcluding it for them - allow them to step over the threshold if they don't realize they aren't ready. –xeno^talk 02:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this - I'll politely direct particularity insistent users to you. Sometimes, a second opinion is all it takes. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Or even just change your wording a bit: instead of "Would you like me to transclude it for you?" perhaps: "In that case, transclude it whenever you think you are ready. You might consider reading Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA to see if you've covered all your bases." –xeno^talk 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. I'll implement it asap. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged =) –xeno^talk 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cit helper

Are you sure about Cit helper (talk · contribs) for reviewer rights ? He has been registered for only a few days. The guideline is not yet established but it looks to me like the user has too little experience (fyi, any user can be granted adminship at the testing wiki). Cenarium (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has my trust and has asked me to mentor his edits. I agree that maybe it was a bit premature to give this user Reviewer rights, but in all good faith, I will keep a close eye on Cit helper. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When something regarding me becomes a concern, please notify me... I wish to be as open-minded as possible when it comes to fixing errors that I make. Cit helper (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I haven't even started to use this right yet! Cit helper (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your third revert of the image description page was completely uncalled for, and that I why I wanted to discuss it on the talk page. The image is not non-free, and if you revert again, I will report you for violation of 3RR. Good day. Taric25 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it deeply amusing how you accuse me of 3RR when I have only reverted you once. Read up on your policy - WP:3RR. Either way, I think it's time for the community to decide here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Cable Channels Remove Again

Hello Fastily, User Active Banana is currently removing Philippines Cable Channels Article like SkyCable, Global Destiny Cable, Cablelink, Dream Satellite TV, G Sat, Cignal Digital TV, Parasat Cable TV, Royal Cable, Kalibo Cable, SPC-New World Cable TV, Telmarc Cable and GV Broadcasting Systems, Inc. among others due to unvalid reason taken from NOTDIR which is not mention about TV channels itself. He is making a Big Deal. What about the other Asian or World Cable or DTH provider article still display but he or she did'nt think to remove it??. I'm curious why the Philippine Cable Articles to removed itself for unsuspicions reason and he put unknown warning itself including Philippine Article both showbiz personalities.! He making a big mistake himself! Please help. --Puppyph | Talk 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Active Banana and requested that he comment on this thread. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have seen Active Banana disruptingly editing Philippine wiki pages. Vgyu 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)VgyuVgyu 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgyu (talk • contribs)

I have noticed this as well, user Active Banana claims that they have reached a consensus about adding the Channel Line-up to the NOTDIR page but upon checking, the policy remains the same. Active Banana is only the one claiming that a consensus has been reached. He is also the one that actually proposed to have Channel Line-ups to be included in NOTDIR. I dont know why he is making a big fuss about this, as well as all the Philippine entertainment Wiki pages. I don't want to accuse the user of trying to get everything that he wants but evidences point to the same direction. I also believe that a lot of Philippine wiki readers have been irritated of what the user, Active Banana did to some Philippine entertainment pages when in face, I believe, he himself is even not a Filipino. I think we may have a case of disruptive editing or even vandalism here against the user Active Banana. -11:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.50.37 (talk)

I am also in support of the other editors here. I really don't like how Active Banana edits some Philippine Wiki pages. I actually think he is not contributing to the page itself but he tags them for any policy errors and most of the time deletes some articles with no valid source instead of tagging them only. -143.166.255.63 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion [3] consensus appears to be to clarify WP:NOT by adding "current channel listings" as part of the "what is a directory and not encyclopedic content". Active Banana (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment (or comments from any other administrators who happen to be watching this page) would be appreciated. These users tend to completely object to anything that they do not see as "stamped with approval" by an administrator. I had thought that the community consensus at WP:NOTDIR talk page would be enough, but aparently not. Active Banana (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would request to semi-protect all Philippine wiki pages, and revert all edits done by Active Banana. I would request to block him for a week for edit warring. Vgyu (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with what Vgyu posted. Active Banana is obviously targeting, deleting and editing mostly Philippine Pay-TV networks and Entertainment Wiki pages. If his intention is to clean up WikiPedia then why is he only targeting mostly Philippine wiki pages. I recommend Active Banana to be banned indefinitely and revert all edits done by this user. -202.128.50.138 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Active Banana vandalized article about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Hello!!

Please be inform to you that the user Active Banana even the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not article or guideline are inserting the channel line-up (supposedly just for today before it was no violation about not to insert the current channel line, but it now include the rules courtesy of Active Banana himself inventing the rule itself at exactly 3:20 a.m. GMT)

I'm rather considered it as of vandalism about the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not rule guide implementing himself to protect of his shameless rudeness attitude of him twisting of our mind we did violate the rules but he did. Please check the actual Revision history of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which include Active Banana inserting prohibiting current channel line-up himself. I'm begging you help us. I think its about time to teach him a lesson now. --Puppyph Talk 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed the changes and was reverted by an unregistered editor and then by a Wiki Administrator. Hence, the ruling for Channel Listings is not in effect yet and has yet to be concluded. Is there a guideline for editing policies within Wikipedia since I believe its only the Administrators that should update the policy. I do not know why Active Banana is campaigning and deliberately insisting that Channel Listings should be blocked in Wikipedia but what he did can be considered a vandalism. The said listing has been here in Wikipedia ever since and no one was making a big fuss about it except for Active Banana. I believe we can revert and bring back all the channel listings of all the pay-tv networks here in the Philippines since its not a valid policy yet. Wiki admins should also take action for what Active Banana did to the WP:NOTDIR page since it can be considered as vandalism. -143.166.255.60 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image files and en categories

I notice that you have recently deleted the en image description pages for several Commons image files of curves such as File:CissoidOfDiocles01.png. These image description pages contained no content apart from a category line which ensured that these image files appeared in the en Wikipedia category Category:Images of curves. They are now absent from that category. If an en image description page is not allowed for a Commons file, is there some other mechanism for assigning these images to an en category such as Category:Images of curves ? This is of practical importance because the category Category:Images of curves has been suggested as an alternative to the list page Gallery of curves in a recent AfD discussion, but this argument fails if an en category cannot display the Commons images that are included on the list page. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Commons has its own categories for curves - for example: Category:Cissoid, Category:Cubic curves, Category:Plane algebraic curves. I think it would be more appropriate for the page, Gallery of curves, to be located on Commons rather than Wikipedia. Hope that helps to clarify things. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see two potential problems with your suggestion of moving the Gallery of curves page to Commons:

The link beneath each image points to the relevant article in the en wiki. Will that be appropriate in a Commons page ? I tried to read up on the topic of interwiki links in Commons, but got very confused very quickly.
How will en Wiki readers find their way to a Commons gallery page ? From reading Wikipedia:Redirect, I understand that automatic redirects from en wiki pages to other Wikimedia sites do not work and the best that can be done is to create a soft redirect. That does not seem very useful in an en Wiki navigation page.

Is there really no way to put a Commons image into a language Wiki's local category ? It seems strange that each language Wiki should be forced to use Commons categorisation structure for Commons images. I can't believe no one has come across this problem before - is there perhaps some previous discussion or guidelines somewhere ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I notice that most of the images in Category:Featured pictures are Commons images with a one or two line en image description page containing a Featured Picture tag and sometimes a POTD tag - and then the FP template indirectly assigns the image to the en category. So is there a guideline somewhere that says what an en image description page for a Commons image file should/should not contain ? If templates are allowed but category lines are not, then I can see how a work-round might be possible. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've left comments at the ANI. QwertyQwerpus (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F2/G6 images and Shouldn't be Commons image

Rather than me endlessly tagging them, http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/shortpages.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&namespaces=6&filter=notemplates&submit=Submit has a list which (once you get past the very short ones) seems to be a list almost entirely of F2 images...

BTW Thanks for checking the images that are tagged as F2 do actually meet commons criteria...

There's a list of possibly mis-tagged files (that still exist on enwiki) here :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Mistagged_non-free_files,

I note you reverted some of my F8 tags in respect of that list. I'd tagged F8 on a few because of the outcome of the Deletion Request and information at Commons. If you think the license is wrong at Commons, by all means challange it with a Deletion Request on Commons <evil grin>, but you would it seems have to provide at least a paragraph and some URL's to show why an image is not Commons compatible ( as I've done in a number of cases recently.)

The English Wikipedia and Commons will be 'cleaned' up eventually, Keep on with your efforts sensibly :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I'll help out as much as I can. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW concering F2 list, I think what I linked was the most basic form of that list... With the options in that tool you might be able to help clear the 8000 (?) or so images on it..

Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Further last message -

Should cover all F2's... I assume you are using somthing like AWB if so it shouldn't take more than a few days to clear the backlog? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Paintloon

He pretty much spilled the beans by logging out and editing through this. Can we block that, too? —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 18:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation.gif

Can you please restore File:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation.gif for some minutes? I would like to add the original upload log to the description page over at commons. -- Common Good (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know when you're finished with it. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. -- Common Good (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now Deleted again. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK)

Hi

Can you have a look at this edit - I think it may be a case of WP:OUTING - there is a ANI open on this editor here. Codf1977 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the ANI thread and it seems that there is consensus in favor of blocking CUNYTruther. That being said, I've gone ahead and blocked CUNYTruther. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)How is it outing when the top of the userpage says "If you want to know more about me, click here" and the name mentioned in the diff is prominently displayed on the external page? Also, as we're been engaging with the "disruptive editor" on talk and AN/I (granted, not with amazingly good results), blocking as disruptive may be premature. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kevbo confirmed not outing here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RPP

Thank You. I had no idea how to check whether it was protected or not myself short of logging out and trying to edit... But that's sockpuppetry (which isn't allowed) :). Thanks Mr. R00t ^Talk 02:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA

Hi. Yes I'm still planning on submitting the RfA but we'll have to postpone it for a few days. I've lost a good friend and I need some time to get over it. I hope you understand. Cheers, Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I changed your Not done to already done ( {{done|already done}} ) here - this way we can quickly scan the archives for the N marks to find any requests that were actually denied rather than already fulfilled. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Income Life

I was hoping you could help me with my American Income Life page. I have revised and included numerous outside sources independent of AIL. It is also a very neutral article detailing the history and facts of the Company. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Jaimejones87 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move deleted article

Please provide me a copy of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Empty Buffer to User:Heymid/Empty Buffer. Heymid (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]