Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 11 July 2011

User talk:Fastily/header

Metis Institute of Polytechnic

Sir, It takes alot of time to write a article. I know that this article looked like an advertisement but that was due to lack of editing. i started writing this article barely 3 hours ago, so how can i complete this article even if i am not given a chance to edit this article. It would be very nice if you restore this article and give me some constructive ideas about this article, otherwise i would also become discouraged like hundreds of others who fears to write an article on wikipedia due to the fear of deletion.--Garvitkamboj (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily/E#G11. If you want a userspace draft, let me know. -FASTILY 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i would like to have a userspace draft..--Garvitkamboj (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done at User:Garvitkamboj/Metis Institute of Polytechnic -FASTILY 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, please also give me some suggestion on what changes i should make in this article to make it presentable on wikipedia.Garvitkamboj (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article in my userspace. Please see if it is ready to be moved on regular wikipedia. If not, then tell me what other changes should be made to make it ready for moving it on regular wikipedia.--Garvitkamboj (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not yet I'm afraid. The Courses offered section needs to go, and the Introduction is still heavily promotional in nature. It's a good start, but it needs some work. I also encourage you to request feedback from other editors as well at this noticeboard. -FASTILY 18:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article again. I have removed the unnecessary details from the introduction, i have done away with the courses offered section. Instead i have just described the trades in which they provides a diploma(i reviewed all many same kind of articles, all of them have a programs section.). Tell me, If you like this time. For me it seems to be ready to be shifted on article space. thanks--Garvitkamboj (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better. I do encourage you to request feedback before you turn the article live. -FASTILY 20:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

DH P2

Hi, thank you for protecting the Harry Potter Part 2 page, but could you please put in the correct release date information into the info box, the current date only reflects the US, not other parts of the world. B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You can still edit the page you know :P -FASTILY 05:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i tried, but my edits didnt show up :( ??? lol B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think they did. If you're still having issues with your edits not showing up, first check to make sure that you actually did make changes to the text of article while editing, and then try purging the cache of the page. -FASTILY 03:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:200 from 84.jpg

Any particular reason that you deleted this file, when I gave a whole slew of categories where it would be welcomed as a positive addition on Commons? Jheald (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The file was missing source information. Find the source and I'll send it to Commons. -FASTILY 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Then it would have been helpful to flag this at the FFD while people could still see it and fix it, rather than deleting it without giving any reason.

Besides, I thought the file was tagged as "own work" by the original uploader?

Similarly File:2005MumFest02.jpg where I identified a use for it, and a cat for it to be filed under on Commons?

Also File:2007.France 1 389.jpg ?

Also File:2003-09-26-DSCN9987.JPG ?

It would be courteous to at least give some kind of reason when you close these.

Also, it would have been helpful to have added text to the subject field to identify what File:Trinity Church.JPG and File:2004 0528School100004.jpg actually are, now we've worked it out, rather than moving them to Commons with completely empty subject fields. Jheald (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Then it would have been helpful to flag this at the FFD while people could still see it and fix it, rather than deleting it without giving any reason." - I just close discussions when time is up, if I had commented, I wouldn't be closing.

File:2005MumFest02.jpg - You really argued to keep it? Where?

File:2007.France 1 389.jpg - Again, you argued to keep it? Where?

File:2003-09-26-DSCN9987.JPG - And yet again, you argued to keep it? By the way - "I like it" is not a valid rationale in any XfD discussions.

As for File:Trinity Church.JPG, and File:2004 0528School100004.jpg, you have an account on Commons no? Last I checked, a user is permitted to edit file description pages on Commons. -FASTILY 22:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a Commons account, and I have now fixed them. It is just as well I checked though, otherwise the effort I put into tracking down these places would have been utterly - and senselessly - lost.

For the three cases above it, I pointed out that there was a Commons category that these images would usefully sit in; in the first one, I said it would also be a useful addition to the WP article. What more are you looking for? Jheald (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You stated what could happen, not what should happen, thus providing us with a healthy dose of informative material, but no persuasive, argumentative claims. -FASTILY 23:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, the general principle here should be WP:PRESERVE. If I go to the bother of identifying a Commons category where the media could usefully be included, I would have thought it was bloody obvious that represents a suggestion to move to commons, whether or not I choose to bold that at the start of my discussion.

If I write "Probably worth noting in the article, and adding the pic", that is an even clearer indication to keep. .

And when innotata (talk · contribs) explicitly writes "Move to Commons no reason to delete", I fail to see what stronger indication you could be looking for. Jheald (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, your job as closer isn't to introduce new arguments or new grounds or new things to be considered. If such grounds exist, you should add them to the discussion and let others consider them, regardless of whether the discussion's time is up. Jheald (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that's strictly within administrator discretion. If you so strongly believe otherwise, trouble yourself to find a policy page (if that's even possible) that explicitly prohibits me from making such a close. Do that and I'll simply restore the page and tag it with {{subst:nsd}}. -FASTILY 23:03, 9 July 2011

I'm take it that it was you who deleted File:Houseboat.jpg as well, in the June 30 FFD (A different Commons pic with the same name now showing through).

Care to undelete it, along with all of the others above, so that they can all be moved to Commons? Jheald (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete File:Houseboat.jpg, check the logs again. And no, I don't care to undelete anything because you have failed to convince me of anything. -FASTILY 19:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had got confused by the various different pictures (one of a different houseboat from Commons, and one from a film called Houseboat with Cary Grant). Confusion could have been saved if you'd actually said what you'd done (renamed the pic to File:Houseboat Dal Lake.JPG and moved to Commons) when you closed the FFD.

As to the others, would you care to explain why you think each of them is worth keeping deleted, and not worth moving to Commons? Jheald (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I already explained my closing rationale above. Thus far, you have addressed me as a participant in the above-mentioned FfD discussions, except I am not. I am the impartial judge who comes through at the end of 7 days and closes the discussions based on the strength of the arguments to keep or delete the files. If you are going to object to my closures on my talk, then explain to me how your points are superior to those of the nominator/!votes to delete. So far, you have failed to do this. You believe I have a certain bias to delete these photos when that is simply not true; I weigh valid arguments against each other and judge consensus to keep or delete based on the claims made. I tire of repeating myself, so here are your options: you can either explain to me how the arguments you made in the debate are superior to the nominator's/!votes to delete (anything but this, and I simply will cease to reply since you already know the answer you will receive), or you can start a WP:DRV. Choice is yours. -FASTILY 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The noms were based on the claim of "no encyclopedic use". That claim is destroyed as soon as it is shown that there is a category on Commons that the images would be suited for. Our m:mission after all is "to collect and develop educational free content". Given that there are relevant Commons categories there and waiting for them, there would appear (at least to me) to be clear value in keeping the images there to show the distinctive flower festival in the park in Ohio, the sea elevation of the museum in Monaco, and the attractive shot of the sailing dinghies -- gathering up free photographs like that is why we have Commons, it's what it's there for. On top of which, the clear guidance for free content in deletion discussions is that any doubt in the discussion should default to keep -- the result should only be "delete" if there is a clear reason to delete. So let's hear what your clear reason was to delete these, rather than to move them to Commons? Jheald (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My threepennyworth...
The files were tagged by me (including a whole host of others) as orphaned files, which I surmised were of little future use, and were therefore put up for FfD. My thought about the images were...

• File:200 from 84.jpg - was an out of focus London bus. I'm sure there are far better photos of London buses (and in focus).
• File:2005MumFest02.jpg - was a very small insignificant photo of an unknown location
• File:2007.France 1 389.jpg - not a great photo, badly leaning verticals, unknown location
• File:2003-09-26-DSCN9987.JPG - a lake/river with 3 boats on it, nothing stunning, could easily have been in a hundred locations, no significant features.
• File:2004 0528School100004.jpg - a rather poor shot of an unknown school, badly leaning verticals as well
  

I see some have made it to commons, I won't give you great odds for their survival, I've witnessed that commons can be quiet brutal at clearing out orphaned files.  Ronhjones  19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Unknown One

Why did you delete my page? It was NOT a hoax, it was actaully based on a true story about my friend. The page is right here------>http://www.wikipedia.org/The_Unknown_One — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanx51 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The page about your 'brother' was deleted because Misplaced Pages cannot accept original research, topics that do not meet the notability criteria, and promotional material. -FASTILY 03:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred Gluck's photo

Hi, could you please tell why the File:Fred-Gluck.jpg, which was placed under fair use rationale, was deleted? Thanks. -- Ashot  05:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. The file failed to meet WP:NFCC#1. The subject of the photo, Frederick Gluck, is still alive, and it is therefore still possible to create a free image of him. -FASTILY 06:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically it is, but there is none available according to Google search results. Doesn't this change the situation? -- Ashot  06:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not, please see WP:NFC#UUI, #1. It is unacceptable to use non-free images of living persons when a free image of that person could conceivably be created. You may not possess the means to create or locate such a free image, but someone else may, and they can upload that image to Commons or make it freely available on the internet. -FASTILY 20:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin tenure

Unless I've missed something, I thought this hadn't been completely resolved and implemented yet. 142 messages have been sent by AWB. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC) PS: it seems there is some kind of explanation here, but it all seems a bit odd to me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it has. I found that new policy to be surprising as well, as, I was not aware that discussion had occurred. -FASTILY 20:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Help

Insults, disruptive editing based upon personal opinions and dislike of a singer going on at Who's That Girl (1987 film) by User:Catherine Huebscher. Reverting warning was issued and reverting continued, ive stopped for admin assistance. Edit summaries and article page comments Talk:Who's_That_Girl_(1987_film) you can clearly tell he doesnt want to "better" the article he just wants it to look worse complaining that its too long. Please help, thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You have my permission to revert them one more time. I'm watching the article. If User:Catherine Huebscher has any better sense, they'll stop before they break 3RR and discuss on the talk page. -FASTILY 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, in lieu of the breaking of 3RR on the above article, and continuous personal insults and WP:BLP violations, I have reported the above user to WP:AN3. — Legolas 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. User blocked indef. -FASTILY 05:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

May I ask your permission to revert back to the original state of the article with a {{POV}} tag? I'm asking this because I don't want to break 3RR, and I have raised a discussion at the talk page regarding the neutrality of teh article, so I want editors to view the original version for their opinions. — Legolas 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be a technical breach of 3RR. What revision do you think the page should be reverted to? I suppose I can do it for you. -FASTILY 05:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Tbhotch reverted it back to the original version. What disturbed me most about the issue was the fact that the user openly admitted to try and come back with socking. I have a hunch we haven't seen the last of this issue. Thanks again for your time Fastily. — Legolas 05:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Don't hesitate to let me know if this user troubles us again. -FASTILY 06:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:1938Berkeleyrunning.jpg

Hello. What was the reason for deletion of File:1938Berkeleyrunning.jpg? As I commented on the deletion request listing, contrary to what the nominator stated the copyright tag seems correct as far as I can see. Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please recall that the file was listed at WP:PUF. If the copyright status of the file cannot be made out in certainty, the file is deleted. -FASTILY 00:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I put a comment on the WP:PUF. It looks to me that the nominator's understanding of relevant copyright law was in this particular case mistaken, hence no reason to say it is "possibly unfree". What specifically about the copyright status "cannot be made out in certainty"? Still wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the file, at the bottom of the page, slightly beneath that last line, can you make out what that little blurb says? For the record - I agree with your position, but I want to be sure that there was indeed no notice of copyright on this image. -FASTILY 05:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can read what it says at the bottom. It says "OVER". Which means the flyer had another side. I get your point -- unless we see that other side, we can't say for sure whether or not there is a copyright notice. So while User:Dominic deletion request claim that it wasn't published was clearly false, there is still reason to doubt the copyright tag. Okay, I think that clears that one up. Thanks for your time. Infrogmation (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review.

I have posted a request for editor review, and would greatly appreciate you lending your voice there. I respect your opinion, and would value your feedback. Best, LHM 03:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll leave a comment, but it's late evening where I live, and I don't think I can write anything of value at this hour. I'll leave a review in the morning. All the best, FASTILY 06:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, Fastily. I have a question: in English Misplaced Pages, is it possible to legitimate the abuse of copyright with such "excuse" ? (detail information about copyright, see Talk:Tevfik Fikret#Copyright). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that user's edits and left them a warning. Let me know if they re-add the copyrighted text. -FASTILY 06:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"vandalism"?

Sorry, just looking for some clarification. Are you an admin/mediator of some kind? Is the vandalism you speak of my changes to the article on Amanda Lindhout? If so, if you look into it, you will find that BabbaQ is fighting against reality. I am a reporter who has worked extensively in Iraq. Amanda Lindhout never worked for Al Jazeera or Newsweek or France 24 (she had contacted France 24 prior to going to Somalia, but the network never published or broadcast anything from her). The only serious work she did in Iraq was for Press TV - the state-run channel of the Islamic Republic of Iran. You can verify all this at a moment's checking on Google (also, some of her Press TV reports are available on YouTube). I have no idea what BabbaQ's intentions or motivations are, but mine are that professionally, she is regarded with a degree of contempt by her colleagues for her behavior (working for Press TV; going to Somalia putting herself and thus her family at risk). Hence I decided to edit (and not to register, so as to remain anonymous of course). To then have people scream "vandalism" at me, I find somewhat surprising! Best regards. 58.164.118.105 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:58.164.118.105#July 2011 -FASTILY 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

HXL49

Just to let you know. User HXL49 has changed their username to Xiaoyu of Yuxi. I'm a little concerned about this given their past history. You have more history with them than I do and more knowledge on being able to change names. Is this an appropriate name change? Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that when he first submitted that WP:CHU/S request. FWIW, if he's requesting a username change because he thinks he can avoid scrutiny, he's sorely mistaken. Thanks for the note though. All the best, FASTILY 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Hope Solo

Hey, thanks for approving my protection request. The United States women's national football team is currently competing in the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, and with Solo being their goalkeeper, it generates interest in her. The 10 day protection seems good enough, because should the U.S team make it all the way to the final and win it, there'll still be 3 days of protection left. Sentient Planet (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. If the vandalism picks up after protection expires, let me know and I'll re-protect the page. Regards, FASTILY 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Steinbracke

Hi Fastily, thanks for deleting Poitevin (dog) and Tennessee Treeing Brindle earlier (that user also had another article deleted for the same reason: Sanshu). Each edit I've seen from them within the dog breed sphere is barely-disguised plagiarism, and I would bet that Steinbracke is an example of this as well. Like the others, it refers to Simon & Schuster's Guide to Dogs as its only source. However, I don't own that book and my county's library system doesn't either; I've been relying on the pages available through Google Books. Unfortunately, this breed's page is not. Is there anything that can be done or are everyone's hands tied until someone nabs a copy? Thanks. Anna 14:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Masonb.jpg

Hello! The picture "Masonb.jpg" I entered the topic Headkeeper (album by Dave Mason) was deleted for lack of information or copyright. The source of this picture is the same as the picture "Masonf.jpg" (front cover of the album) withdrawal of the same web site "http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/dave_mason.html." I have the original vinyl album in the Brazilian edition, where I got all the information, and provide cover to the pictures posted. Please tell me how can I put it back without risk of being deleted for the second time.GrandABC (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)GrandABC.

A commons request

I would like to get your opinion on this image review comment at commons:User talk:MacMed#Flickr review?. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese block

Since you have interacted with Roscelese in an administrative manner already today, could you please talk with them about this rude talk page message they left me? Thanks. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)