This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamesAlan1986 (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 8 October 2011 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:22, 8 October 2011 by JamesAlan1986 (talk | contribs) (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)CKD Galbraith
Hello, I was looking at the CKD Galbraith article yesterday. Why was this deleted so quickly? Could you please restore the article, so that it may evolve into something more encyclopedic? I don't think it was particularly an Advert like, but rather more of a 'stub' of which there are many articles. Thanks Hackbinary (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you have again, deleted CKD Galbraith's article. You did not address any of the points that I raised. I will be forced to instigate the complaint procedures against your deletionist ways if you do not offer greater explainations to your actions. I appreciate that you are attempting to keep the quality of contributed articles up. I would ask you to allow new articles sufficient time to develop. I am now watching your actions, and this article in particular. Hackbinary (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have now seen that you have deleted User:GMcQ page. This is wholey inappropriate, and contrary to ways, and philosophy, of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages has due process, and you have not adhered to the review process. Please explain your actions. I am now lodging complaints against you. Hackbinary (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- User:Fastily/E#G11 -FASTILY 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have now visited your page. I am asking for you to undelete the articles and the user who created them in the first place, and to allow time for them to evolve. Hackbinary (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Odd. Before even giving me a chance to respond, you threaten me with "complaint procedures" and now you expect me to help you? Oh please. Try asking again, nicely. -FASTILY 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is bug in the system, because you edited this yesterday, and now today it was put into your archive. I can't say that I spend as much time with Misplaced Pages as you do, however, I would expect that there would be some process where peripheral and causal users of Misplaced Pages can contribute, and not make it overly onerous. The reason why I brought up complaint procedures was because of the speed and arbitrary nature with which you seemed to be acting. I would say that CKD Galbraith is of significant national note in Scotland, and it's article and editors should be given reasonable space and time to rectify the diffencies of the article. Many thanks in advance for your assistance.
- I would further add that http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:GMcQ user's with the original text of the article seems to have disappeared. Could you at the very least least restore that user's page Hackbinary (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Odd. Before even giving me a chance to respond, you threaten me with "complaint procedures" and now you expect me to help you? Oh please. Try asking again, nicely. -FASTILY 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have now visited your page. I am asking for you to undelete the articles and the user who created them in the first place, and to allow time for them to evolve. Hackbinary (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Article protection
I request that you revert the latest changes ( & ) by User:YMB29 on Battle of Tali-Ihantala article which erased several references and cited sources and replaced it with his own information without discussing such issues on the talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- So you are asking for the page to be reverted to your version, where you deleted or misrepresented sourced information...
- My latest edits were meant to be a compromise, but I guess you just want to keep alternative views that you don't like out. -YMB29 (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- And I only removed information, including what I added also, that is out of scope for the article (the article's intro is not the place to review the surrender issue in detail). -YMB29 (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here you are mistaken. I'm waiting for the admins to reach their decision. However what you did was to erase several sources which directly contradicted as to what the comments you were using - in intro alone and further into the text. Furthermore you erased several dubious tags without actually providing any answers even though they were linked to ongoing discussion on the talk page, and you erased several fact (quote) tags as well which you had so far not provided any replies for. Before your edits the last paragraph contained multitude of references and citations - after your cleansing it contains in essence only Soviet or Russian sources as you erased all references which contradicted your POV, it is not a compromise but instead it is pushing biased POV into the article. Had you only edited the page i would most likely had no complaints or requests for revert but instead you erased all references which contradicted your POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- So adding a POV you don't like is "pushing biased POV."
- The view you support is there. I did not removed it... What I removed from the last paragraph was your manipulation of the sourced text I added, such as your OR claim about "not widely supported." Like I said in the edit summary, each paragraph (first and last in that section) contains one of the two opposing views.
- As far as tags go, you can't put tags next to statements that are sourced; that tag is for unsourced statements (maybe you are confusing it with the quotation tag). You have not provided a reason why the sourced information is dubious, besides your complaint that the source is "unreliable and fringe." You are lucky not to be blocked, so if I were you I would not be complaining... -YMB29 (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is the way you are using Baryshnikov's claims. He states that certain claim is part of 'Finnish historiography', then you see similar statement in non Finnish book and jump to conclusion that the book must follow Finnish historiography, however that is OR, nothing else (could be synthesis too actually). Second you have authors statement that he had help with Finnish sources yet he is still stating a couple of lines later that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited, yet you again jump to conclusion that he is using solely Finnish sources, again that is nothing else than OR. In the chapter in question he author reaches similar conclusions as the Finnish researchers have and again you immediately state that he is using Finnish conclusions, which - again - is nothing else than your OR. And also it is not polite to lie, you did remove most of the references in the last paragraph leaving only those supporting your POV and erased everything that contradicted it, yet you are blaming me for removing verified sources. What Baryshnikov states is not dubious, it is only how you are using because so far you used it to provide your OR or used it as basis of your own synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- How many times can I tell you that just because an author is not Finnish and uses a lot of non-Finnish sources in his book, does not mean he is not influenced by Finnish sources on certain views. Based on that you claim that Baryshnikov is wrong, which is original research. The author's use of Finnish language sources is limited, but as said in the preface, he got help with translations and understanding of the Finnish views. Furthermore, he lists English language books by Finnish authors that he used. So your claim that his conclusions are not based on Finnish views is incorrect. Also I did say - According to the views expressed in Finnish literature and some sources outside of Finland..., so I don't know why you are complaining...
- Like I said I did remove your manipulations of sourced text (your OR from the end, synthesis about the Stavka order). The part about advancing to Helsinki was already mentioned before and should not be in the paragraph that is for the non-Finnish view. You were misusing it to make it look like Baryshnikov is overlooking evidence by Finnish historians when in fact he is directly addressing it.
- Also, I don't think this is the right place to be talking about the article. -YMB29 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you are just admitting that your claim is original synthesis (ie. original research) by you - in essence: Baryshnikov (a certain viewpoint is Finnish) + Lunde (comes to same conclusion as Finns) = YMB29 (Lunde is clearly influenced by the Finns). I thank you for your candidness. Also there is nothing supporting your claim that Lunde conclusions would be influenced by Finnish views that is 100% your own OR and nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- No it is you who inserts OR into the article: (Baryshnikov writes that views about a Finnish victory come from Finnish historiography) + (Lunde has the same view but is not Finnish) = (Baryshnikov is wrong ). -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- What you are missing is that i had actually added references to that statement (granted a later on) so it was not OR, several non-Finnish authors have expressed views which contradict what Baryshnikov states. Unless you can establish a source which proves that those non-Finnish authors used Finnish conclusions without making their own conclusion (regardless if they reach the same conclusion or not) you have nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again you are making the claim in the article, so you have to find a source which specifically says that Baryshnikov is wrong since authors like Lunde don't base their conclusions on Finnish sources. You can put as much references as you want, but if the sources don't explicitly say what you are inserting it is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, no i do not. The claim that Lunde was following Finnish historiography was yours based on Baryshnikov to begin with. Which is nothing than OR and/or original synthesis. I'm not stating where or how Lunde came up with his conclusions that is totally your doing and your OR, nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The quoted sentence above that you inserted into the article says otherwise... -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- And how exactly? Lunde (for example, he wasn't alone) contradicts Baryshnikov while clearly being non-Finnish and only evidence of Lunde's conclusions being based on Finnish sources or being influenced by Finnish sources are your original synthesis and/or original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- What you just said is obvious original research... Or do you have a source that analyzes Lunde like that? -YMB29 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which exactly, only claims related to Lunde have been made by you - which places the proof of burden on you as well - and so far all of those have been either original research or original synthesis (or both of them). Furthermore Lunde's work was published in 2011 which makes it impossible for Baryshnikov (works publishes in 2002 & 2006) to refer to him or to analyze his conclusions in any way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- If no OR by you can you give me the source which explicitly sates that: however contrary to the Baryshnikov's claim several non Finnish historians also hold contradictory views to the one held by Baryshnikov... This is not your personal conclusion and you do have a source, right? -YMB29 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong there again, what can be found are several sources (non-Finnish) which contradict what Baryshnikov states. That is mere statement of facts nothing else supported by several sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- If no OR by you can you give me the source which explicitly sates that: however contrary to the Baryshnikov's claim several non Finnish historians also hold contradictory views to the one held by Baryshnikov... This is not your personal conclusion and you do have a source, right? -YMB29 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which exactly, only claims related to Lunde have been made by you - which places the proof of burden on you as well - and so far all of those have been either original research or original synthesis (or both of them). Furthermore Lunde's work was published in 2011 which makes it impossible for Baryshnikov (works publishes in 2002 & 2006) to refer to him or to analyze his conclusions in any way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- What you just said is obvious original research... Or do you have a source that analyzes Lunde like that? -YMB29 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- And how exactly? Lunde (for example, he wasn't alone) contradicts Baryshnikov while clearly being non-Finnish and only evidence of Lunde's conclusions being based on Finnish sources or being influenced by Finnish sources are your original synthesis and/or original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The quoted sentence above that you inserted into the article says otherwise... -YMB29 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, no i do not. The claim that Lunde was following Finnish historiography was yours based on Baryshnikov to begin with. Which is nothing than OR and/or original synthesis. I'm not stating where or how Lunde came up with his conclusions that is totally your doing and your OR, nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again you are making the claim in the article, so you have to find a source which specifically says that Baryshnikov is wrong since authors like Lunde don't base their conclusions on Finnish sources. You can put as much references as you want, but if the sources don't explicitly say what you are inserting it is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- What you are missing is that i had actually added references to that statement (granted a later on) so it was not OR, several non-Finnish authors have expressed views which contradict what Baryshnikov states. Unless you can establish a source which proves that those non-Finnish authors used Finnish conclusions without making their own conclusion (regardless if they reach the same conclusion or not) you have nothing but OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- No it is you who inserts OR into the article: (Baryshnikov writes that views about a Finnish victory come from Finnish historiography) + (Lunde has the same view but is not Finnish) = (Baryshnikov is wrong ). -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you are just admitting that your claim is original synthesis (ie. original research) by you - in essence: Baryshnikov (a certain viewpoint is Finnish) + Lunde (comes to same conclusion as Finns) = YMB29 (Lunde is clearly influenced by the Finns). I thank you for your candidness. Also there is nothing supporting your claim that Lunde conclusions would be influenced by Finnish views that is 100% your own OR and nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reason is the way you are using Baryshnikov's claims. He states that certain claim is part of 'Finnish historiography', then you see similar statement in non Finnish book and jump to conclusion that the book must follow Finnish historiography, however that is OR, nothing else (could be synthesis too actually). Second you have authors statement that he had help with Finnish sources yet he is still stating a couple of lines later that his usage of both Finnish and Russian sources is limited, yet you again jump to conclusion that he is using solely Finnish sources, again that is nothing else than OR. In the chapter in question he author reaches similar conclusions as the Finnish researchers have and again you immediately state that he is using Finnish conclusions, which - again - is nothing else than your OR. And also it is not polite to lie, you did remove most of the references in the last paragraph leaving only those supporting your POV and erased everything that contradicted it, yet you are blaming me for removing verified sources. What Baryshnikov states is not dubious, it is only how you are using because so far you used it to provide your OR or used it as basis of your own synthesis. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here you are mistaken. I'm waiting for the admins to reach their decision. However what you did was to erase several sources which directly contradicted as to what the comments you were using - in intro alone and further into the text. Furthermore you erased several dubious tags without actually providing any answers even though they were linked to ongoing discussion on the talk page, and you erased several fact (quote) tags as well which you had so far not provided any replies for. Before your edits the last paragraph contained multitude of references and citations - after your cleansing it contains in essence only Soviet or Russian sources as you erased all references which contradicted your POV, it is not a compromise but instead it is pushing biased POV into the article. Had you only edited the page i would most likely had no complaints or requests for revert but instead you erased all references which contradicted your POV. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
deleted Hugo De Man under R3
Hi Fastily, I found two articles with red links to Hugo De Man. I knew he is a Belgian person and I created a soft redirect to the nl wiki as a kind of stub. And I was planning a translation in the near future. I don't see directly the match with "R3: Recently created, implausible redirect" rules. Can you explain? Kind Regards, SchreyP 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please post a translation locally on en.wikipedia, and include interwiki links in the body of the article. Interwiki redirects such as the one you created are generally prohibited, and appear the mediawiki software as broken redirects. -FASTILY 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. I was not aware that this creates problems. I will plan a translation in the near future of Hugo De Man. For my information what is allowed usage of soft redirects? -- SchreyP 11:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Fred Dyson
I forget whether you were the one who initiated this deletion the first time. If not, Dyson was adjudged to be notable enough and the article was kept. As an incumbent state legislator for nearly 15 years, Dyson certainly passes WP:POLITICIAN. This article also falls within the goals of WP:STLEG to create new stubs on state legislators who haven't previously had articles created. The only issue I see has to do with issues regarding the article's creator, which I see as being a strawman argument, if anything. If there are other issues with the article, please feel free to express those. As you can see for yourself, WP:ALASKA hasn't been very active the past several years, so if improvements need to be made, they just very well may be slow in coming.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- #Kathleen Clyde -FASTILY 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read that already. This is the second SD I've had to seek to overturn recently (the other was KENI) because the deletion was made due to issues obviously more important than such trivial matters as the notability of the subject or the likelihood that the article can be expanded (sarcasm intentional).RadioKAOS (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kathleen Clyde
Hey Fastily- I noticed you deleted the article on Kathleen Clyde. While not "my" article, I did edit it and will likely start another one at some point since she's notable as a state representative in Ohio. I realize it was created by a banned user, but he/she was not the only person editing it. Did you have notability concerns as well? Thanks for your time. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Was looking at the log on the article...noticed it had been deleted before (G3 Vandalism) and then recreated. I probably edited oe of the previous versions. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The editor is a serial copyright violator and the Contributor Copyright Violations page is not working. Marcus Qwertyus 17:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help to stop the terrible attacks and deletions of articles pertaining to Ohio politicians by User:Marcus Qwertyus. He has consistently been on attack against one user and is now creating a terrible drain of information on Misplaced Pages. EVERY and I mean EVERY article he has deleted has been stocked with credible sources and are liable. He is creating a great disservice to individuals in Ohio, especially in an election year. Can you please see that each of articles on a Ohio politician that he has deleted are has submitted to be deleted is reinstated. I am willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that this does not continue to happen. I am greatly outraged! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.215.130 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching Marcus Qwertus' actions for awhile now and from what I can see they are constructive in helping against this copyright violation guy, but are very nonconstructive in terms of allowing individuals who can vote in Ohio know about their politicians. I've tried to look at Misplaced Pages periodically in regards to Ohio politics, and it's going in the wrong direction because of this guy Marcus. I felt it was finally time to say something by creating an account. Please do what you can as the head honcho around here and make sure this kid from St. Louis isn't hampering the ability for Ohio residents to know about their legislators... especially in this election time. Please put this articles back into place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhioPolitico40 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Fastily/delete.java
You might want to protect it, as I can edit it. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. Forgot I still had that laying around. I never ended up using that code for anything. Regards, FASTILY 20:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
How
I noticed that the Catergory: Canidates for speedy deletion page get backlogged alot. I could review the articles and delete the ones im sure meet deletion critirea. How do I delete articles? Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 00:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Only administrators are able to delete pages. -FASTILY 05:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For the Anguluma/KongoGroup block, freeing me to go to bed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Cheers, FASTILY 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
ShelfSkewed
I am worried they are about to cause an edit war. I pointed out to them on their talk page (Link in topic) that I Need You (LeAnn Rimes song) needs at hat on it as there are several songs that have the title "I Need You" and only 9 of them have pages. They keep saying it breaks this stupid Misplaced Pages:NAMB thing but I don't see that it does cause if you look at the disambiguation page it's clear that they all need one, how else are people gonna know there's other songs with the same name, especially when they don't have pages? Can you please say something to them. Thanks! JamesAlan1986 * 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ben Gurion Airport
Hello, I feel that the "freezing" of the article and the warning you gave the user KARPARTHOS will not help. And in my opinion even in a week and a half freezing will end, he will still continues to ruin the article. I'm sure he does it on purpose and that's, i can not talk to him because he does not listen and he incites me against others and it really uncomfortable. I really do not know what to do.--Assaf050 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| You are really good at doing your admin's duties and I just thought you should know it's really appreciated ^_^ JamesAlan1986 * 19:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |