User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Question about Photo

Thanks for your post on the photo notice board. You have recommended asking the company who issued the photo to send an email giving permission to Wikipedia. I can try to arrange that. My question is do they need to also send the photo in the email? Or is the email itself enough? Thank you for your assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail alone is fine; it should just identify the photograph clearly by wiki filename or link to it. It's also crucial that it specifies exactly which license it is to be placed under. Recommended license CC-BY-SA. Please make sure when you contact the owners they need to be aware that they are allowing its use not just on Wikipedia but re-use anywhere else for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. I'll see if I can get this taken care of.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have sent them an email with all the pertinent details. How will I know if/when the send the proper email to permission-en@wikimedia.org? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. The mail will be processed by volunteers on our OTRS ticketing system, which, unfortunately, has something of a backlog, I'm told. If the owners tell you the ticket number they received, we can add a provisional tag about that on the image page. If OTRS response should be delayed and the image happens to get deleted before things are clarified, don't worry, just give me a note once the info is there and I'll undelete it for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade of 1946

The article currently says: The only allied countries not represented at the parade were USSR, Yugoslavia, and Poland. In my opinion there should be another sentence there clarifying that unlike USSR or Yugoslavia, Poland had a large army on the Western front which fought together with the Brits.  Dr. Loosmark  18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet or reincarnation account

Does this contribution history look a touch questionable to you? [1] It appears possible that that the user may be sockpuppet or reincarnation account, possibly connected to [[2]]. Varsovian (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade of 1946

Thank you for your work on this article. Generally your edit is very good and my suggestions are mainly wordsmithing.

1. "Polish allied forces" I think that the word "allied" is redundant: it is rather unlikely that Polish axis forces would have been invited.
2. "These forces had been loyal to the Polish government-in-exile" This should probably be past simple rather than past perfect (at the time of the parade the vast majority of those forces were still loyal to the govt-in-ex, which the article can reflect by use of the past simple. To be historically and grammatically accurate, at least 89,300 of those forces had been loyal to the German govt as they had served in German armed forces; probably it’s best that the article doesn’t reflect that).
3. "given diplomatic recognition to the new communist Provisional Government of National Unity in Poland" Firstly it is a factual error to call the TRJN "communist": the majority of its members were not from the communist party. Secondly, it was internationally recognised, On 16 October, delegates of the TRJN signed the United Nations Charter and Poland became a member of the United Nations.
4. "a small number of pilots of the Polish figher squadrons in the Royal Air Force" Firstly could you please fix the spelling of ‘fighter’. Secondly, the invitation was actually limited only to representatives of Poles who had flown in the Battle of Britain. Thirdly, of the 145 such pilots, 25 were invited: that is 17%, a higher proportion that any other unit.
5. "The official Polish government, in turn, along with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia[8], chose not to send a delegation, citing the invitation to the pilots as its reason to stay away." That was actually given as a reason after the parade had taken place, perhaps add the word ‘later’ (as in "later citing")?
6. "all Polish forces effectively excluded." Exclude means ‘prevent from entering/taking part’: Polish forces made no attempt to take part and thus could not have been prevented from doing so, in fact they were invited and decided not to participate.
7. One notable omission: "The airmen, however, refused to accept the invitation in protest against the omission of the other branches of the Polish forces." No representatives from any armies or navies from non-Commonwealth/Empire countries were invited. Perhaps the article should reflect that western command Poles were not being singled out when representative of their army and navy were not invited.
   

Again, thank you for your work. Varsovian (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the comments below (please advise if I can not respond to them): 1) I'm happy to leave the word allied in "Polish allied forces", I just think it is redundant (let's not go into the topic of Poles in the German armed forces here); 2) at the time of the parade the majority of the members of the TRJN were not communists, what happened to Mikolajczyk et al after the parade is not relevant for this article; 3) I do not suggest that we give the percentage, my point was that the number of pilots invited was not small given the size of the contribution (25 was also the number of eastern command Poles and a lot more than 145 of them took part in the war); 4) I can agree that "Polish forces were in effect not included." that is an accurate statement of fact, unlike stating that they were "excluded"; 5) I'm not sure what point is referred to there so I can not make any comment. Varsovian (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Some points noted. Could I have a clarification then:

1. What exactly would the normal, expected form of participation have been, compared with that of other non-Commonwealth nations that had fought in the West? A flag plus honour guard like the Greek one shown in the photograph? And was that what the Polish government had been invited to send?
2. When the pilots protested and decided to stay away, what exactly were their expectations? (a) they already knew that the Polish government wouldn't participate? (b) they expected the Polish government to participate but felt it didn't legitimately represent them? (c) they felt there should be a larger delegation, including extra representation of the army and navy comparable to their own? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The invitations were sent do Soviet puppet government in Warsaw and its formations, only when it didn't respond the British sent after controversy invitations to individual Polish soldiers who fought in the West who could attend, not to any Polish formations. So in effect you wouldn't have any Polish formations represented officially, just some individual soldiers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1. From what can be seen in film of the event (links to such were once in the article) and the official program (which lists all participants) representation for non-Commonwealth/Empire nations was a flag and honour guard (as shown in the photo) and not to individual services or units (with the exception of certain selected Allied air forces). According to a written reply the British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question in the House of Commons "the Polish Government have been invited to send a contingent of three high-ranking officers, three aides-de-camp or staff officers and a flag party of three men, followed by a detachment of 24 men representative of the Polish fighting services". That would seem to be approximately the same size as the Greek representation in the photo.
2. a)Dr Mark Ostrowski quotes The Times newspaper here as saying "The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived. Unfortunately, it seems that none of the Polish servicemen who fought in the West under British command will take part. Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them." so it appears that the invitation to Western Poles was rejected before the Polish govt. declined to participate.
   

2b)Rudolf Falkowski, a Polish pilot in 635, 639 and 303 squadrons says here "At the time, we couldn’t get over the fact, that the British Government, dealing with Stalin for several years, were so naive as to think that the so called "Polish government totally subservient to USSR, would sent it’s contingents, to join their compatriots in England."

2c)It follows from what is said in the Times and in numerous other sources (let me know if you want some of such) that the western command pilots refused their invitations because "they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them". Varsovian (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1.Varsovian is portaying a completely biased picture-they were no "Polish Axis forces" or "Forces loyal to German govt"-they were a number Poles forcefully conscripted to German Wehrmacht in Upper Silesia, often under the threat of prison or torture. Obviously they can't be named as "Polish Axis forces".
• 2.TRJN was run by communists. The non-communist membets were imprisoned or had to flee Poland in fear of their lives-such as Mikolajczyk who escaped hidden in a cargo ship to USA.
• 3.Giving percentages for number of involved is completely unnecessary.
• 4.Polish forces were in effect not included.
• 5. Unless there is a source that compares it and claims so this would violate OR and SYNTHESIS policies.

Just a clear up of Varsovian claims-while I can edit the article, I have other matters to attend to right now and I neither want to engage in editing of this article right now. so far your edits seem to be balanced FPS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks to you both for the feedback and info. I'll see what tweaks I can make to the text some time later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

[3] If you read this link provided by Varsovian you will see that this was in larger context of post-war Labour government not wanting to offend the Soviet Union and cutting of ties to Western Poles, as well as bit of unease with Katyn Massacre. The text describes other incidents like this one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the link does indeed cover more than just the parade, much more. I linked to it only to answer the specific questions of Future Perfect. Varsovian (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow edit-war help needed

Would you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Borealis55 ? He appears every 2 weeks or so to make the same tendentious rv, without any discussion. He used one discussion page once finally, to insult me in Russian.--Galassi (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback is on the case.-Galassi (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

issues

As you blocked obvious single purpose account Covermepleasemon (talk · contribs), another reincarnation emerged with identical purpose MajorSuiteInParadisetoja (talk · contribs) [4] [5][6][7]. Plz keep an eye on it. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

I would like to appeal to your Arb Requesr Reinforcement decision [8]. I have seen your reply to Olive [9]. I assume that you meant that you did not intend to discuss any appeal from her or him to your decision. I hope my case is different. If it is, could you please explain how I should proceed. I have no argument except that I do not understand why. If you could explain a little bit the understanding what's going that you have in my case, I might be able to bring some new elements to this understanding. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since, I have no answer from you, let me directly consider the argument that was presented in the AE. In a comment [10], which he made after the AE was closed, Doc James insists that the outside editors did not change their mind about a Rfc. He retracted it when he realised that the AE was closed [11], but he insisted on it and find the way to make the same comment again [12]. Looking at the last version of this comment, we see that, after a request of Doc James and in support to Doc James, Yobol, an outside contributor to the Rfc, insists that he did not change his mind about the Rfc. We see here that it was important for Doc James to present and use the Rfc as some kind of survey in which different options (actually only two) received supports from editors. In fact, the AE was presented as if I and two other editors acted as a group in an edit warring against the most supported option in this pseudo survey.

There are serious problems in this AE argument. The first problem is that a Rfc is not a survey and, if it was used as a survey, then policy and guidelines should apply: Wikipedia:DR#Conduct_a_survey and Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. In that line of thoughts, I did not felt bound by an Rfc-pseudo-survey. Instead, I focused on an ongoing discussion, not about the pseudo survey, but about the subject of the Rfc with new elements constantly emerging. In particular, the Rfc was about the research summary paragraph in the Intro and Yobol (the same outside contributor as above) did add new statements, [13] and [14], about this subject and he explained that he did that after he received additional information. Note that, after a request of Doc James, Yobol insisted that he did not change his vote or position in the Rfc. Nevertheless the information he added was very useful in the ongoing discussion from which we could not draw yet any definitive conclusion.

The second problem is that I did not act as a group or collude with other editors. Consider the single edit [15] that was presented as an evidence against me. The basis of this edit was a proposal that I made in the talk page [16]. This proposal was entirely my independent thinking. In this edit, I simply replaced a statement by Doc, which he argued in the talk page presents the main findings and conclusions of some reviews, by my own statements, which I also argued in the talk page, better present these main conclusions and findings of the same reviews. This is all discussed in details in the talk page. It was not a revert to support TimidGuy or Olive, it was a completely different proposal. I was not even aware of an edit war between other editors.

Finally, and not the least, I did not had any warning regarding edit warring as a group. Fladrif mentioned a few times to me in my talk page that the Arb request decisions apply to new comers as well, but these were not warnings against edit warring as a group. Besides, I don't think a warning should come from an involved editor. I felt that Fladrif was only trying to intimidate me and did not see any official warning in this, certainly not against edit warring as a group. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

You are being discussed on my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ANEW

Future, I'm not going to handle an ANEW report an an Arbitration Enforcement matter. See my note at ANEW, please. Courcelles 09:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it likely AE will give you what you want in this case; I didn't say there wasn't a violation of Digwuren. AE, though, lets multiple admins examine the case, while 3RR reports are usually handled by one admin (Why am I telling another admin this?) If you want to request an uninvolved admin review on ANI with a view more towards Digwuren, I wouldn't be opposed in the slightest, I merely handled it as a 3RR report, giving AE time to consider the case soberly. (And I avoid AE as if the entire concept was cursed.) Coincidently, you're the second person within 4 weeks to say my blocks regarding 3RR were too light, perhaps I should have blocked for longer in this case. My sense of fairness prohibits me from extending the block at this point unless explicitly an AE action, though, again, if someone at ANEW or ANI were to desire to extend the block, I would have no objections. Courcelles 10:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

AE

Is this [17] dead? He's still breaking the sanction. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of now, sorry for the delay, but I had the feeling I'd need to watch his conduct for a bit further and look into the quality of his recent edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks dispute

Apparently User:Objectiveye doesn't believe in following directions and has violated the 1RR rule for the article (I removed some extremely dubious information). Please see the history from today. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I'm not doing anything about it because I was the one who removed the information in the first place. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is not dubious, but it's nothing new. I removed the addition and explained my removal on the talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, "dubious" meaning it's a stretch to interpret it the way Objectiveye was trying to interpret it. I'm sure the draft map and draft treaty exist, but they weren't the final ones so it's useless to even include reference to them in the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Forsts23

Didn't take him long to violate the ban, see [18]. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, all his recent edits violate the ban Forsts23 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doug, FutPerf, I got this one. Blocked him for 24h in the hopes that'll be sufficient to let him know he actually has to follow the ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've raised an SPI on him. It may be just a coincidence, but an IP suddenly reappearing and doing virtually the same type of edit needs checking. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess that takes care of the problem, then. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock

You recently block Stanovc (talk · contribs), and he reemerged like Cicavica (talk · contribs).On Commons already uploaded image like own work, which is disputed as you see image... Like previous sock, username is geographical name, this time of mountain Čičavica. --Tadija^speaks 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Bletaja (talk · contribs) is also a sock of Stanovc. --Local hero ^talk 16:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

What's the policy if a sock enters valid references: do we still take out contributions? It seems like Stanovc has Neritan Ceka's book, because he keeps referencing from that. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to take full responsibility for the correctness of an edit, you may chose to reinstate a sock's edit. However, please be careful about fact checking. I don't know that book by N. Ceka says, but the sock was also ostensibly citing a paper by Kapetanopoulos, and that paper happens to say something diametrically opposite to what he claimed. Not Illyrian, no kingdom, nothing. What Stanovc has been doing here is brazen-faced source falsification, so I wouldn't accept anything at all at face value from him, without having somebody trustworthy check every single reference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Stanovc has been little communicative with me, so I am not going to take any responsibility for his edits. I was about to AGF him, but people who are little communicative do wrong only to themselves and the articles they sometimes claim to contribute to. I would behave the same way if I were you. Best. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC I never saw him use a talkpage/communicate; maybe he doesn't know how to. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I am sorry, but I constantly disagree with you. I certainly do not "Canvassing" as you say. I always notify fellow editors for Greek related articles as I have many times notify you also! Their contribution is valuable and needed! Besides the decision about an article is made by many editors not by you and me. You haven't realise that I do not promote nationalist views but I am against that practise. To consider that Zalongo dance is a part of Albanian history (an Albanian tragedy I assume) is highly Pov and certainly a product of modern Albanian nationalism. To consider also the Arvanite/Souliote as Albanians while they self-determined as Greeks is exactly the same as considering modern Macedonians as Bulgarians. I am wiling though to continue to try to communicate with you and I will keep notifing you for article (among other editors) although I know we have almost opposite views.Seleukosa (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you here, but Seleucosa: weren't you the one to enter the sentence that it made an impact in Albanian history and then you added {{cn}} [19]? Until you edited the article no one claimed that the event had relevant impact in the Albanian history, just that it is part of the Greeks and Albanians' history. So please don't create inexisting problems but take it more easily. Besides what Albanian nationalism do you claim if the only Albanian source is from 1962 and it is RS? user:Alexikoua is a good wikipedian with whom I often collaborate on Epirus topics, you may want to drop him a line. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New Guildenrich: Beserk [[20]]

Seems our friend Guildenrich is again active (Even his name is inspired by Germanick mythology again). A quick look at his contribution makes it more than clear that he is a sockpuppet: especially when he pumps in Markos Botsaris, supporting the 'Albanian side'.Alexikoua (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought too that he might an old user but I couldn't say whose sock he could be if he is a sock, so Alexikoua should start a SPI.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Things are too obvious, what's surprising is that he doesn't hide his tracks. Also the last 2 1/2 months after S. Maximus sockban he created lot of disruption with his ips.Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not obvious and if he really is Guildenrich the CU will confirm it like it confirmed KengaJone. Btw I had asked from a checkuser to CU him but my request was rejected because of insufficient evidence.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I bet that his block is a matter of days, considered he will continue to create the typical mess on the same topics.Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Typical Guildenrich style disruption is still active [[21]] [[22]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Advice regarding AE

Hi, I was wondering if you could give me some advice regarding the article Croatian language.

A quick summary: this article has been subject to a slow but longstanding edit-war with two editors and numerous IPs repeatedly reverting to an old version in order to remove mentions of Serbo-Croatian, but which also removes several correctly placed tags [23] and now subsequent corrections to the grammar and poor English [24]. The removal of the material was rejected in extensive discussion on the talk page, where editors had to endure such personal attacks as this. Reversions are now occurring with no further discussion.

The recent edits of the two editors now reverting, Mir Harven (talk · contribs) and Croq (talk · contribs), have been almost entirely to this dispute or the closely related one at Serbo-Croatian language. Other related disputes have also occurred in recent months at articles such as Croatian grammar, Serbo-Croatian grammar, etc. One administrator, User:Kwamikagami has been involved in trying to keep order at these articles, but it is clear this this is not sufficient.

Am I right in thinking that this behaviour on articles in this topic area falls under the remedies of both WP:ARBMAC and WP:DIGWUREN? If so, which is more applicable and what is the correct procedure for going about using them to improve the situation at these articles?

Thanks and best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. How are you ? I've formed deletion request for the first time (in English Wikipedia). When you have plenty of time, please check technical problems. Thank you. Have a nice vacation. Takabeg (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring during an RfC

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Markos_Botsaris#RFC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. I mentioned your name there. Could you please help stop disruption of Beserk, Athenean, and Alexikoua? An RfC stays for 30 days, shouldn't we all wait till it's over to make edits? --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement at Macedonians (ethnic group)

Hey. I see your travelling but I'm still letting you know about the discussion going on here because you are the one Balkan-related articles editor to whom everyone listens. So, if you're at all available, let us know what you think there. --Local hero ^talk 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete Borshi please

Hi again, I today created Borsh and then realized that the page Borshi, which is grammatically incorrect, already existed, so I merged the contents of Borshi into Borsh. At this point, could you please delete page Borshi and keep Borsh since they are duplicates? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, redirected Borshi to Borsh. Thanks. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Or simply use {{delete}}. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 07:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

London Victory Parade

Thank you for your work on this article. Unfortunately it seems that after a period of stability one of the participants in the edit war which led to the need for your help, Chumchum7, has returned to the article and restarted 'work'. This edit claims that Britain shifted diplomatic recognition from "the pro-democracy Poles" towards the "totalitarian control" of the "new communist-dominated Provisional Government of National Unity" (Communists were actually the minority in that government). This is now the fourth time that Chumchum7 has made changes to your version (none with any prior discussion). The concise 328 word single paragraph which you created has now become a 400+ word three-paragraph section. We now have 420 words about the 'Polish issue' and 460 words about everything else connected with the victory parade combined! Isn't that a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT? What can be done about this? Perhaps failing to ban one side in an edit war was not the best of decisions.... Varsovian (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern Greek history proposal

Hello Fut! I hope you have some pleasant vacations. When you have time, please take a look at a proposal I have tabled a proposal on a restructuring of coverage of modern Greek history in Wikipedia. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Image problem

Would like a verification here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Image_in_prep_2_non-free — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kavs8

Hi I've just noticed that you blocked | on the 1 August. Kavs didn't realise he was blocked until the 17 August, and made an appeal on his talk page. He forgot to use the {{unblock}} template, but however I've added it for him now.

Anyway I ask you to seriously consider unblocking this user. Yes, I see that he has uploaded copyrighted images on many occasions, however he has never been blocked temporarily before as a warning. Therefore it is quite likely that this user didn't realise the consequences of his behaviour.

This user has contributed greatly to Wikipedia, and without him many aviation articles will fall apart. Thanks, Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Project

Am I right to revert the edits of a user who adds Joshua Project as a source? Kavas (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

New sock

Since you have dealed with him in past [[25]], he has created a number of recently deleted articles like Illyrian clothing, creating also a mess in Illyrian related articles [[26]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

FPS, Could you please send me Illyrian coinage so that I can put it in my sandbox and work on source verification? That article seemed to have some value and work on it. Thank you! --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FutureP even if you were absolutely sure that they had to be deleted you shouldn't have done it yourself because you are involved and at least regarding the case of Illyrian clothing G5 was the wrong tag because the article had substantial edits from other users. Please userfy both articles to my userpage's sandboxes and I'll start working on them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually this article was completely or and unsourced. Even some sporadic references couldn't qualify as wp:rs (except Wilkes who was misused).Alexikoua (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian clothing was questionable but Illyrian coinage was way more referenced. I was planning to work on that, but I saw that it was deleted. Now this is exactly my point when I say that socks damage only themselves and the project they claim to represent. FPS feel free to give them both either to me or Zjarri. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuman people

Just because some less known Mr.Spinei writes that Cumans are Turkic it does not really mean that racially they are of the Turkic stock. There are some claims of them being of Persian caste as well being sometime associated with Scythians. Also coincidentally in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was a Sarmatism movement, according to which the Polish-Lithuanian society was continuation of the Sarmatian society located in Cumania. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP back

The anonymous editor whom you indef banned in November of last year [27] is back [28] making these same kinds of edits as before. Since this is a block-evading anon IP I'm not sure if anything can be done; if so that would be appreciated. If not, just making you aware of it.radek (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment on my Talk Page

Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being involved in the SPI in question and know that we were cleared. I would hope that you can warn him off this subject, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on the Admins that make difficult blocks list - the ones that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Already handled. GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check your mail

Hi I sent you an e-mail three days ago, would you mind checking your inbox? Thanks, Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Another sock

These is an obvious similarity between this [[29]] and this [[30]] account. Alexikoua (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Image Help?

Hi you recently unblocked me, i followed the procedures from a website and uploaded an image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baggage_belt_view_Cork_Airport.jpg could you take a look at the copyright and make sure ive followed procedures. The website says it is allowed to be used e.g. printed, copied etc... but not to be edited. Thanks again, Kavs8 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. I'm afraid no, this will not work. The license expressed in the copyright statement allows only personal use (e.g. on your own computer), but not re-publishing. What we need is a license that allows re-use for any purpose (i.e. re-publishing, any use inclusing commercial use, modifications and so on). You therefore rightly chose a copyright tag that marks it as "non-free", but we can't use a non-free image here because (among other things) it could easily be replaced by a truly free (self-made) one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks how does it get deleted? as i dont want to return to the rocky road if you get me. Kavs8 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob, I've deleted it for you. In such cases one could also request deletion with the "db-author" tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Kavs8 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Saguamundi

Hi there, I see you blocked User:Saguamundi yesterday for sockpuppetry. I encountered the user on the article on Alanya, a town in southern Turkey, changing the term "Anatolian" to "Turkish" and "Turkoman". The user "fixed" the edits of an anonymous IP, which was making similar edits at the same time. So I suspect that 81.214.149.148 and 85.104.28.52, both of which are from Ankara, are probably just this same user you blocked yesterday. So I was just going to let you know.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Kymi etc

I wasn't really thinking about primary usage.. Just trying to tidy up the disambig links - I've since noticed that there are:

• Kyme (disambiguation)
• Kymi (disambiguation)
• Cuma (disambiguation)
• Cyme (disambiguation)
• Cumae (disambiguation)

all of which contain amongst other things, links to the three places. I think a few of these should be redirects, but the MOS for greek transliteration etc is something I know nothing about. It seems like there should be a better way to do this? Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I created several of these right now. The disambig system around these Greek cities was an absolute mess, because each of the cities has been at a different spelling, and there was hardly any systematic disambig system linking them. The issue is that all five name forms overlap on these three cities, but each of them (except Cumae) also has other unrelated uses specific to each spelling. I don't think the duplication of the dab pages is much of a problem though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after a bit it started to make sense.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the inter-disambigation link I added is neccessary.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider the sanctions against me

Regarding the sanctions you issued at WP:AE, I'd like to ask you to reconsider them. As drafting arbiter Roger Davies pointed out after the matter had been closed[31], the TM arbcom specifies that the steps for a sanction must include a warning and that didn't appear to have been followed in this case. And in subsequent discussion he further says that the warning be specific to the alleged misbehavior[32]. In addition, it was procedurally odd to issue a ban without providing any diffs or links that evince the alleged misbehavior. Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do you have any idea what this might be about? They've been vandalizing various pages in your userspace this morning, and they're using more than one IP to do it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for taking care of that. It's User:Wikinger having one of his regular bouts of madness again. Oh, and all IPs that are not from Poland are open proxies. RB(+protect)I is best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot one, which the creep to advantage of. I plugged it. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Paranoid activity

Can you take a look here [[33]]. A newcomer seems to have been out of control: deleting votes [[34]], changing votes [[35]][[36]], double voting [[37]] and trolling and canvassing in general [[38]][[39]][[40]].Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's ok now, thanks to Sandstein.Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this guy please

User:Jo0doe, blocked twice (for one year and six months) and permanently banned from Russian-language wiki is back and already it looks like he's getting argumentative/disruptive here. He also also apparently trying to form a team with another editor with a history of being blocked for argumentative/disruptive behavior on eastern European history topics, as seen here. Don't know if any line has been crossed yet but the pattern is familiar and he seems to have rather quickly jumped into contentious issues with his difficult-to-understand arguments. Something to keep an eye on to hopefully nip problems in the bud...Faustian (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And here he is, apparently canvassing to get his record clear and showing that he refuses to acknowledge that what he did in the past was wrong as seen here and here.Faustian (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reinsertion of the section

Hi, Future.
I had no intention to take your precious time, but since the other user that engaged in editing of article Battle of Pakrac has left Wikipedia.
I've wanted to ask ChrisO about this, but he left Wikipedia. His talkpage is locked and "Bye, bye.". Who remained? You.
I wanted to restore part (as much as possible, I don't push for all) of the article that was "lost" in ChrisO's rewriting.... Without deleting ChrisO's text. There's place for all of us on this world.
I believe that these sections aren't problematical. One'll say that more "political neutral" terminology should be used - I believe that it's easy to reach an agreement about that.
Basically, I won't touch ChrisO's "solutions". Although, I find strange that his sources multiply Croatian success, e.g., they show no wounded on Croatian side, and 5 times more (158 persons more) captured rebels (!!!??).
You can see my messages at the bottom of the talkpage. [41] (I agree with the term "clash"), [42] (I disagree with you, but I understand you), [43] (remarks about belittleing of small nations' sources, compared to Western, and explanation why Cro. sources are necessary [44]), [45]
About the grammar: I'll ask user Thparkth and some other users to correct the grammar errors, if necessary.
I'm telling you this, since I don't want to seem as some edit warrior in your eyes. I don't want to read messages like "don't push your POV, this is the final warning" and to "gain" the title of edit-warrior.
The article is nobody's ownership. Everybody can edit it. Including me.
If my previous edits look too sharp, it's not the problem to "smoothen them" (ChrisO already changed non-neutral words, so that's already solved), so they can fit into the text, without breaking any wiki.rules. I believe that even the other side won't disagree with the text.
BTW, I've found another Croatian source, from the very involved person (Josip Boljkovac!), whose book gives some information that give brighter light about some person(s) from the local Serb community. Bye, Kubura (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what do you wish to reinsert? It's not clear to me from what you write above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for waiting so long for my answer. I was very busy maintaining my homewiki.
I'll write that text that on the talkpage of that article... these days. :) Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Greek Alphabet

I feel we've lost something important with the recent changes to the images for stigma and digamma. The bottom line for me is that in the "real world" these mainly exist as lowercase letters, so that, if we really had to choose a single form to represent for the general purposes of the template (and I'm not sure we do: what appears at the top of the template on the article pages for these two letters would be great), it would be the lowercase. I am pretty wedded to the idea that lower-case forms, resembling the appearance of good published sources, should appear in the template. But I don't want to assume you oppose their inclusion, so I figured I'd come to you first and ask if you think putting them in can be part of your ongoing tinkering. Wareh (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right that for Digamma the lowercase (transcription) glyph (ϝ) is so distinctive and so well established in typography that it's worth including together with the (epigraphic) capital glyph – unlike for some others such as "Heta" or "San", where the casing is an extremly recent technical innovation and not yet established in practice. For Stigma, I'd even say it exists (almost) exclusively as lowercase, just like Sampi. Actually, now that I look again, the graphics I used was in fact supposed to be the lowercase, but its vertical alignment and sizing as an image didn't make that quite clear. – BTW, given that the lower section with the additional characters is such a mixed and unprincipled ragbag, I was actually playing with the idea of throwing it out altogether and replacing it with a few links to overview articles:

• history
• additional characters
• diacritics

Thoughts? (For now, I've restored the casing pair for Digamma.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the digamma/stigma changes you've made are a definite improvement.

I can see why the "ragbag" as a whole doesn't appeal, but I would want to distinguish between the sho/tsan/heta level of obscurity & marginal participation in the set of glyphs used in Greek writing, and some of the others, which precisely because they are less-known may be more often the object of the Wikipedia user's quest for understanding. (And of course, there will be those who differ with me about such a classification.) I think, despite some of the technical and ontological questions that are irksome in the bottom section, it is still more useful than not to provide browsers with these immediately clickable choices. I don't know if we could get statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "ragbag" links get followed more often than the basic set of 24 letters; after all, there is something a bit obvious about simply listing the 24 letters from α to ω. Wareh (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The current state is looking very good to me. Wareh (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a formal appeal to your sanction

See [46]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification

A request for clarification [47] has been filed per [48] Although it may not affect you directly, your name has been mentioned or referenced.(olive (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC))

Could you look at this and give a warning if appropriate?

I think as a no-nonsense admin, linguist and expert on national conflicts you are the best admin to give an opinion on this, though if you don't have the time that's fine:

At Talk:Ireland#Failure of this article to mention the British Isles we have a conflict because some (Irish) editors reject the term British Isles and some (English) editors insist on using it. I tried to moderate and made a concrete proposal that appeared acceptable to all. It was later substantially modified by Rannpháirtí anaithnid, who had not participated in the discussion. Now Snowded, who was a party to the consensus, claims that they did not understand the consensus as fixing the wording of the passage "archipelago that has traditionally been known under the collective term British Isles", but as covering a change to "This archipelago is known as the British Isles however, owing to perceived political overtones of the word British, Britain and Ireland is becoming the preferred term."

I am trying to establish a zero-tolerance environment for pure disruption and trench warfare at that article. Could you look at the discussion and warn Snowded (or any other user) if you feel that's appropriate? Hans Adler 11:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor requesting your comment at WP:AE

See [49], where Wgfinley is requesting your comment on the appeal by Edith Sirius Lee. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

one title

I fully support Imia/Kardak name as it is neutral. But, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TITLE#Treatment_of_alternative_names says "An article can only have one title". Does Imia / Kardak or Biel/Bienne violates this rule or not? Kavas (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am aware the current "Imia/Kardak" title is something of an exception to what is otherwise our rule. The reason I still believe it's the best solution is because of its rather unique situation out in the literature. These islands are so insignificant that hardly anybody has ever referred to them by name in English independently of the political conflict. Where either of these names is used in English alone, it is (in 95% of all cases) by a partisan author from either of the two national sides. Neutral academic publications on the topic rather systematically do exactly what we are doing: using a double name. Therefore, I believe in this exceptional case our naming is following the spirit of our main rule: use the most common name used in English, because in this exceptional case the double naming scheme in fact is the most common. I doubt if the same would apply to Biel/Bienne, and I'm somewhat astonished to see the double name currently used there, but I haven't looked into that case and can't comment on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of a better wording? That wasn't intended as a "rule", but to reflect the software constraint that every article must have one title as part of its URL. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hey, Wikinger appears to be using a web host (1&1 Hosting in Poland) to evade. I just blocked one earlier. --Bsadowski1 08:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that one. Yep, that's him, again. He likes web host proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse protection

Hello, I've noticed that you've protected a long-term abuse report that you have created. Would it be possible for you to unprotect the article (or change it to edit=autoconfirmed) so those that manage long-term abuse can link/update it? Thanks. Netalarm^talk 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I was assuming most people there would be admins anyway. I've reduced it to semi now, but I expect this will need a lot of watching against sock tinkering this way. It's clearly going to be a disruption target. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

Hi, Future Perfect. Your name came up as someone who might be able to help with difficulties that have arisen in developing the article Aorist. Hope you have some time to pitch in. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Project

What do you think on usage of Joshua Project in Wikipedia ? I am reposting my question, as I guess you did not see my first comment. Kavas (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to using it in the context of population statistics for ethnic or religious minority groups and the like, as I have seen it done on some occasions, I would generally tend agree it isn't a good source. Where is this currently an issue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it is used in Kurdish diaspora. Secondly, I have used Joshua Project in List of Turkic dynasties and countries but after seeing that there are 541,000 Azerbaijani people in Turkey according to Joshua Project, I have removed the references from Joshua Project since there are approximately 3 million Twelvers (Caferi, not Alevi) living in Turkey which are in fact Azerbaijani people.

But, the main issue is in Turkish people page. According to the sources used in the page there are 500,000 people living in France from Turkey. According to Joshua Project, 81,000 Kurds and 225,000 Turks are living in France. The sum (306,000) is much smaller than 500,000. I have therefore removed all references from this project in this page. Kavas (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanovc

Can you take a look at these categories: [[50]] [[51]], seems he created lots of completely unsourced article that need quick deletion.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

anti-warning

are you blind?there was a double infobox this was vandalism,not the collage photo.

For this we could make a vote calm down angry boy Greco22 (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek epichoric alphabets

Wow, congratulations on this new page! I have made some endeavours at dealing with the subject at la:Abecedarium Graecum#Abecedaria epichoria, which until recently was the most extensive treatment of Kirchhof's observations on Wikipedia, but your version greatly exceeds mine. Good luck, --Fabullus (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, ὦ βέλτιστε. Si ad paginam illam augmentandam ipse contribuere velis, gaudebo valde. Nunc enim ad movendum in principalem paginarum classem non iam completam eam puto. Paginis alphabeti litterarumque graecarum magno opere me deditus sum, ut, si licet dire, legem illam Bachmanni demonstrem; quoniam maximam illam perturbationem, quam in has paginas infamus inserabat ille Varangius architrollus, spero, quia promisit pronuntiavitque ipse, demum finitam esse, et requiescere nos demum posse ex illius de obscuris litteris parakyismatisque delirationibus. Hac de causa paginam etiam enneacosia numeris characteri quam illustre emendare nunc vovi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Euzen the sock?

This new Greek user has 26 (twenty six) edits and he is already taking up the review of Skanderbeg to GA. Can you see if he is a sock? --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied to his remarks Talk:Skanderbeg/GA1, however his review shows clearly that he really doesn't know well Skanderbeg and the sources provided. In addition he is showing a lack of knowledge in Wiki policies by insisting that we call people involved in the article (and move those article's names) by names given in Latin language primary sources, rather than using the names as provided by contemporary English sources. Furthermore he doesn't know that Albania at that period was a clearly distinct entity from Epirus and Skanderbeg would call himself Prince of Albania AND Epirus, while Euzen thinks that the editors ar confused. I would really like YOU to be the reviewer of that article, if you find some time. It doesn't have to be neither this week, nor this month, but I can't see how another neutral editor would do a finer job than you with that article's review. You have worked with Balkanian editors for the last four years and know the area quite well by now. I am not saying that the article deserves a GA status, actually in my opinion we are really far from that, because a lot of references are missing, pages are needed, and also prose is extremely poor, but I wouldn't want such a poor review by someone who has a limited knowledge of wikipedia policies. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He continued to edit in the GA review by removing completely my responses. [52]. Should I report him to AN? --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought the GA to deletion [53], but was declined by sysop KillerChihuahua [54]. See my reasons for that deletion User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Deletion_of_Skanderbeg.27s_review please. And it'd be nice to have a word from you. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem brewing

Could you please get a handle on this disruptiveness? If you look at ?Jo0doe (talk)'s history, it's the same as after the last time he was block. He came in, spent a couple of weeks making decent edits on topics such as battleships, and then got disruptive on nationalist topics (note that he is trying to recruit a formerly topic-banned editor here). If you see here per digwuren sanctions he has been "banned permanently from all pages relating to Holodomor, broadly construed. This is due to persistent vios of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX" by Moreschi, then blocked for year with these comments from Moreschi: [55] "There is no reason why productive editors should have to put up with your persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and general WP:TALK violations. Please also consider that this is the English Wikipedia and contributors must maintain an acceptable level of that language. In other words, I recommend a language course during the next 12 months", and then after returning blocked for 6 months by you with the following comments: [56]. Perhaps a ban on topics involving Jewish-Ukrainian-Polish-Russian conflict would be appropriate? Regards,Faustian (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi - I just try to clarify the origin of text about "many jews" [57] which cited in several articles through [58] but not appeared in it.

Same issue with "Once the OUN was at war with Germany, such instances lessened and finally stopped " from [59] added here [60] at page 159 . At Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine An international conference September 23–26, 2009 Kyiv I've met with nice scholar which provide me his work [61] to use at Wiki - and I'll do all the best to imrove the project quality. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were caught selectively quoting (cherry-picking) information from the Rudling text to push your POV, as documented here.Faustian (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also worth nothing that Jo0doe has permanent block on ruwiki for his anti-Ukrainian edit-warring, and ruwiki is not particularly ukraine-friendly. The other problem is that his English is impenetrable.--Galassi (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Emirr

Hello. I can't understand why are you saying it to me. I didn't change anything. You are telling me something that I didn't do. So, yes I can take it personally. Please don't disturb me for something I haven't done again. Have a good day. TheEmirr ^Message 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

possible vandalism

Can you look at [62]? The numbers from IMF website has been changed by this user. It's possibly a vandalism to write 8480 instead of 8723. Maybe this user uses data from another website but does not use it in references. Kavas (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reinsertion of the section (2)

Hi, Future.
12 days gone and your talkpage is already archived. Wow!
Please, take a look again at this version of the article about battle of Pakrac [63].
If we put grammar errors, "unneutral" expressions and some names (because of WP:BLP) aside, this version is good. It's more detailed and profound than the current version.
But that doesn't mean that I want to remove the lines from the current version. There's a place for everyone.
The author that wrote for Hrvatsko slovo is Marijan Pinhak, a documentarist. He's a donor of war videos from the area of Pakrac and Lipik to Museum of Pakrac. Please see Museum of city of Pakrac. For his work on collection of professional and amateur videos about greaterserbianist aggression on Pakrac, he won the annual city award "The Seal of City of Pakrac"; he made 3 DVD's "The reconstruction of destroyed cities of Pakrac and Lipika 1995-2008“, "Croatian War of Independence, Pakrac i Lipik od 1991-1995." and amateur documentary about the tragedy of DI "Papuk" Pakrac. He plans to make 7 DVD's about the Croatian Homeland War in Pakrac.
I'm not pushing you "here and now". Take your time. Bye, Kubura (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Chen Wenyuan / User:Wikinger

I meant to raise this with you when I encountered it (well, once I'd worked out that there was a serious issue) - apologies for not doing that, but I see you're now "up to speed".

Giftiger wunsch raised this issue on my talkpage, having already CSD-T2-tagged the template created by the Chen user, and having reverted all edits where an IP had added the template to blocked users' pages. I deleted the template, and initially thought that that was the end of the matter. However, when GW mentioned that they had reverted instances of the template being used, I dug deeper and saw that an IP had addd the template immediately after Chen has created it. At that point my good faith turned to deep suspicion, and I blocked Chen.

The reason I gave for the block was vandalism. I was uncomfortable with that then, and I remain uncomfortable with it now. It was a hasty decision, resulting from "being caught on the hop", and from seeing my assumption of good faith proven to be a mistake.

Clearly "Chen" is a sock. Is there any value in me re-blocking Chen to indicate this, or do you feel that your sock tag is sufficient? TFOWR 09:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wouldn't bother, personally. The less attention we pay to Wikinger the better. I tried to talk with him reasonably the other day (User talk:83.30.144.212, User talk:Judyta85), and I have to say his latest shenanigans were probably, in a way, his own twisted way of trying to be constructive, but still, he's a rather, let's say, strange personality, and in general a simple BRI approach is probably best. Thanks for taking care of the template thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you check a source(s)?

Hi, I’ve noted that you’ve done some source checking in the past : [64]. It would be nice if you check the source [65] on factual accuracy representation at WP (source permission usage was granted upon education proposes usage at WP)

• source suggest Hauptsturmführer title (used at Sicherheitsdienst rank – see at source Roman Shukhevych’s title was that of Hauptsturmführer (captain) of the first company and deputy commander of the legion ) ) but not Wehrmacht rank Hauptmann as suggested by WP-editor [66] [67]
• source does not suggest to call fact as claim (see Bloody pogroms and mass murders were carried out in these cities, and soldiers of Nachtigall participated in the slaughter of Jews) as suggested here [68] and here [69]

Also would be nice if you can check Philip Friedman. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation. at Yivo annual of Jewish social science Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1959 (also available at Roads to extinction : essays on the Holocaust. New York: 1980 [70] ) upon a text – “OUN-B condemned anti-Jewish pogroms and specifically warned against the pogromist mindset” – which contradict the text at p.265 of the source itself and mainstream scholars acknowledgment – see [71] (…in April 1941, on the UNO Congress in Krakow, struggling Jews was practically legalized) , [72] – (It is an undeniable fact, though, that OUN organized pogroms and mass violence against Jews and others throughout western Ukraine in July 1941.) and numerous other scholar sources including Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. I can send you a copy of texts mentioned if you have not online access to it. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also would be great if you take a look at the Chuyev credibility [73] [74] - information on Chuyev was greatifully provided here [75]. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No contradiction in the article concerning pogroms and the OUN. The OUN-B condemned pogroms in April but then organized them a few months later after the Germans, with whom they wanted an alliance, asked for them. This is clearly written in the article here. An excerpt:

"The OUN-B's ambivalent wartime attitude towards the Jews was highlighted during the Second General Congress of OUN-B (April, 1941, Kraków)in which the OUN-B condemned anti-Jewish pogroms.[40] and specifically warned against the pogromist mindset as useful only to Muscovite propaganda.[41] At that conference the OUN-B declared "The Jews in the USSR constitute the most faithful support of the ruling Bolshevik regime, and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in Ukraine. The Muscovite-Bolshevik government exploits the anti-Jewish sentiments of the Ukrainian masses to divert their attention from the true cause of their misfortune and to channel them in a time of frustration into pogroms on Jews. The OUN combats the Jews as the prop of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime and simultaneously it renders the masses conscious of the fact that the principal foe is Moscow."[42]

On the other hand, the OUN was willing to support Nazi antisemitic policies if doing so would help their cause. The OUN sought German recognition for an independant Ukrainian state. Despite it's declared condemnation of pogroms in April 1941, when German official Reinhard Heydrich requested "self-cleansing actions" in June of that year the OUN organized militias who killed several thousand Jews in western Ukraine soon afterward that year.[43]"

Jo0doe, who is active on that and other articles, is aware what it is written there but chooses to provide a false impression. Rather than spend 10 minutes adding info to an article, I've now had to defend against this false accusation. And he, rather than try to improve an article, is wspending his time making false accusations designed, I suppose, to waste others' time. Jo0doe is just being disruptive as usual.Faustian (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just ask an editor to independently check the sources texts. I'm not accusing anyone thanksJo0doe (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Look what I caught Jo0doe (talk) doing: [76]. Seriously, how much time needs to be wasted tracking down those little subtle manipulations, rather than making real contributions to wikipedia? Granted, since returning from his block he has not been as bad as he had been before. But still, could you at least issue this guy a warning, please?Faustian (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology at Bardyllis

This might be of interest to you: [77] [78]. Apparently you can't call something "folk etymology" unless you have a source that explicitly calls it "folk etymology". Athenean (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...

… for fixing the interwiki at Prefectures of Greece; I guess the keyword 'Nomos' will satisfy the Dutch silicon-based lifeform now. How did you actually find the redirect? The 'what links here' at the German WP gives an endless list. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 10:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. One of the redirects I actually created myself just for the purpose, and then I saw there already was another (which was linked to from their de:Nomos page somewhere.) Interwiki bots do have some annoyingly Borg-like characteristics sometimes, it has to be said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Species 8472 could pay them a visit. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 02:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Seleukosa

Future I know that we have disagreed many times but I think you as a honest person. I need your skills as an experienced administrator. I am not quit sure what to do with this accusation [[79]]. I have replied but I dont know if there is any other way to prove my innocence. I am a wikipedia editor for nearly 4 years and I have a perfect record! I do find quite suspicious this accusation against me.Seleukosa (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you future for your immediate response. If there is anything else that can be done technically please advise.Thank youSeleukosa (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know what happened here [[80]] but I think that everything has become more complicated! Can you please have a look again! I really don't know what to do!! It is becoming more and more an effort to try to prove that I am not an elephant!Seleukosa (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Future for your quick response. I never expect to say this but I am more than happy to see your comments in that sockpupet report!( I cant get out of my mind that the entire sockpupet report was not done in good faith.)Seleukosa (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Guildenrich SPI

Don't know if you already noticed, but there's another one [81]. Best, Athenean (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hello. This is just a heads-up that there is a question about the Sampi nomination on the DYK suggestions page.

Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sampi

Great work! I requested the queue-assembling admin to make it the lead hook. :) --BorgQueen (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, what an honour! :-) I decided I wanted to turn this page into the most overblown and over-cited article Wikipedia has ever had on utterly obscure topic, in honour of Bachmann's Law. Not sure if I've succeeded with that, but it was decidedly fun to write. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Great article. You should file it for FA, but first learn to speak and spell American instead of Brit (honour) ;-) ! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Martintg. Offliner (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Help please

I brought this up on another thread, but it deserves its own. I realize you are busy dealing with Greek-related topics at the moment, but could you please check into this situation when you get a chance? Coming off his 6 month block, Jo0doe (talk) seems to be getting more and more disruptive. Faustian (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that.--Galassi (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jo0doe also engages in copyvio, pasting materials from the web without changing anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_People%27s_Militia&diff=prev&oldid=388860356 --Galassi (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Another manipulated edit by JoOdoe: The caption of a well known image of a Ukrainian polizei in a marketplace in Kiev in 1941. According to Jo0doe it is "a roundup of Jews", while it depicts no roundup of any kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_People%27s_Militia&diff=next&oldid=388652938 --Galassi (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not true, Galassi afraid well refenced edits by Jo0doe. Galassi & Lvivskie are trying to whitewashing UPA and Ukrainian nationalists.--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been caught totally falsely using one reference and at best using original research with another, discussed here. On this article I removed a false reference to the sentence "Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." If you link to the article used as a reference, on-line here: [82] you clearly see that the militias are accused of doing none of those things in this article. Instead those militias are accused of committing pogroms in 1941. In the other case, a reference also available online mentions Ukrainian militias vaguely, but doesn't specify that these are the specific militia about which this article, the Ukrainian People's Militia. Moreover, it describes the Ukrainian militias as killing Jewish women and children but not the other stuff mentioned in the sentence.

Out of two verifiable sources, both were misused by Jo0doe (talk) as anyone can see for themselves by clicking onto the links. This is clearly disruptive behavior. Futureperfect seem to be busy cleaning up a big mess on Greek-related topics now, hopwefully he will be able to help here soon. It is good and noble to document OUN crimes. Doing so by falsely using sources on the other hand is not good.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Do you know this user? --Idh0854 (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, sorry for the trouble. This is User:Wikinger, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger. He's a very confused person and has been on a long campaign spreading some bizarre nonsense about a very obscure topic, minor Greek alphabetic letters, in all the different Wikipedias. I have been trying to clean up some of this. Ironically, he is currently trying to be "good" and making edits he thinks I would like, but he's still very confused in doing so. But it's true that the topic of the page ko:Ι͘ is not really a genuine Greek letter, and should probably not have an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I am an administrator at the Dutch Wikipedia en I saw this edit. Is this also Wikinger? 83.30.139.68 has been blocked for one day by MoiraMoira for the reason of sockpuppetabuse. If 68.169.86.202 is Wikinger too, than I can block this IP (and maybe both IP's for a year if there was a checkuser). Trijnstel (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that's Wikinger too. See also below. I wouldn't bother about long-term blocks, as it's a very dynamic IP range. He also uses open proxies a lot. Only thing that helps is to semiprotect all pages he takes an interest in, unfortunately. Sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction: 68.169.86.202 is an open proxy, so a long-term block would be reasonable for that one. His normal home ISP is the Polish one, as in 83.30.139.68. Anything that acts like him but comes from a different ISP is an open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 68.169.86.202 for one day and I have asked a colleague (RonaldB) to check this open proxy.[83] I don't know much about open proxy's and dynamic IP's. Thanks for the explanation! Trijnstel (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is so interesting. Okay. Thank you! --Idh0854 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Demands ???!

Is this your normal way of communicating? If so, I asume you've never read WP:AGF. We're all here te improve Wikipedia. Your way of communicating is not helping it at all. Also: please login with you username when making edits. See WP:SUL. Silver Spoon 14:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That of course wasn't me, but vandal User:Wikinger. He's a very confused person, and currently he is trying, in his very confused way, to be "good" and help me with cleaning up his mess. I really don't know how to deal with him. Having him fight "for" me is almost worse than having him fight against me. Certainly more embarrassing. Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger for some background. BTW, MoiraMoira already knows what's going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am really really sorry for my above message. I see in the above message it's most probably the same crosswiki vandal. Silver Spoon 14:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, next time I'll first read WP:AGF :P. Silver Spoon 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have marked your last version at the german WP. I think you might ask for Sichter rights. As a native German speaker and an English sysop I'm sure they'll grant you those rights :). Silver Spoon 14:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I wasn't sure how they handle those things over there. Having to wait for people approving your edits sort of sucks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx both SilverSpoon and Future Perfect at Sunrise. That Wikinger person is a real problem it seems. Let's keep in touch. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Guildenrich

I wonder if there is any way to restore Guildenrich's talkpage [[84]]. I remember one of Sarandioti's socks (Kreshnick) asked him to activate his email in order to cooperate off wiki. This can explain the close tag-teaming between Sarandioti&(possible)socks and Guildenrich&socks.Alexikoua (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sampi

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dancing sampis, bouncing happily all over the place together with their friends.

Congrats, it got a reasonable number of hits [85]. I wonder if you could do the same job for all the rest of Greek letters? :-D Sorry if I sound like a slave owner. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sampi is getting famous! :-) Well, I started with the most obscure ones, and actually did some rewriting of Sho (letter), San (letter) and Koppa (letter), but they wouldn't grow as big as this one. But if anybody wants to expand the mainstream ones, I've got goodies for them. For instance, barnstars should be on offer for the first person who manages to meaningfully cram all of commons:Category:Greek epigraphic Beta together with this and this into the Beta article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Heraion

Well, the article needs first to pass a GAN. Then, in theory, it could be rated as A-class by any project member, since GAN takes care of most of the style/content/formatting issues. In practice however, the provision does not apply: the few A-class articles WPGR has (except for Koine Greek) are those that have gone through a WPMILHIST A-class review process. Constantine ✍ 11:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, whatever the conventions are. Should we then initiate a GAN? Oh, and while you're at it, how about re-assessing my new pet article, Sampi (see above)? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bring both to GAN. I'll take care of reviewing the Sampi, but the Heraion will face problems due to its lack of inline citations (BTW, Sampi needs a few more too, in some of the more sweeping statements like "It is generally agreed...", "Objections to this account have been related..." etc). I don't really know if an exception is possible, but either way the best thing is probably to bring this to the attention of people over at GAN. Constantine ✍ 16:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you check a source(s)? Part 2

Can you help me to find here [www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de/pdf/vdw_en.pdf] at page 9 a text which suggest

15 October 1941 the 218th police battalion belonging to HSSPF Russia South aided by the Ukrainian auxiliary police

[86]

Also would be nice if you can help to find German words Sonderdienst Bahnschutz Werksschutz At the text [87] from here [88] added here [89]

Could you also advice – does I need to specify cited sources twice - [90] [91] one time at the lead and again at article body itself. Also does exist any restriction [92] to use PD-Gov texts published in Red and Blue books set-[93] ? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. [94] - ???. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet checked all the links cited above and below here and cannot yet judge what the issue is. Just about your first question: In the "Verbrechen der Wehrmacht" document you cite [95], I cannot find the sentence specifically about the "218th police battalion". However, there is a similar sentence about something that happened on 1941-10-15 in Krivoy Rog: "an as yet unidentified police unit which belonged to the Higher SS and Police Leadership of Russia South joined with Ukrainian auxiliary police in murdering about 2500 Jewish civilians and 800 Jewish prisoners of war." So, the role of the auxiliary police is sourced, the specific German unit isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time - so - I guess - edit summary and edit itself was incorrect?Jo0doe (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't spent a lot of time on that article, having only learned of it. But two clear and obvious examples of falsehood or POV-pushing: here I removed a false reference to the sentence "Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." If you link to the article used as a reference, on-line here: [96] you clearly see that the militias are accused of doing none of those things in this article. Instead those militias are accused of committing pogroms in 1941. In the other case, a reference also available online mentions Ukrainian militias vaguely, but doesn't specify that these are the specific militia - the Ukrainian People's Militia - about which this article is written. Moreover, it describes the Ukrainian militias as killing Jewish women and children but not the other stuff entioned in the sentence.

So, both sources that could be verifiable showed that one was clearly falsely used and the other was as best very sloppily used (original research) or perhaps falsely used as well. Given these verifiable facts, it seems highly likely that other sources used by the editor are also misused. The other ones, unfortunately, are not verifiable. They are books published in Ukraine, in Ukrainian, offline, unavailable for most wikipedia editors to check. This makes the entire article created by the offending editor quite suspect, which is unfortunate because the topic does deserve its own article. How long will Jo0doe (talk) be permitted to engage in such games, wasting editors' time?Faustian (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

About the source [97], I'm not sure it's a very reliable source in itself, technically, although the authors earlier printed papers to which he is referring probably are. The text does include statements such as "in the winter of 1943-44 [...] UPA lured survivors out of hiding in the forests, enrolled them in labor camps and then killed them". That, together with the "Verbrechen der Wehrmacht" paper mentioned below, would indicate that a sentence mentioning "round-ups of Jews for mass executions [...] forced labour sites" etc. isn't quite wrong, and it's certainly not only about the pogroms in 1941. My apologies if I should be getting stuff wrong here, because I am thoroughly unfamiliar with the topic and with those different local organisations. BTW, works published in print in Ukrainian are not for that reason automatically unreliable. They are still verifiable, it just takes a bit more effort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved in this mess! The wikipedia article was about the Ukrainian People's Militia, not UPA. according to the article, Ukrainian militias were responsible for committing a wave of pogroms in 1941. The sentence this reference was used for was ""Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." None of these things was mentioned in the article as the work of this militia. It looks like the editor simply added references based simply on the fact that Ukrainian nationalists were described doing horrible things.

One of the issues with using books printed in Ukrainian in Ukraine is that the guy using them has a history of misusing sources by quoting selectively, etc. If a source isn't available in libraries outside Ukraine, nor online, how do we make sure that it isn't being misused also?Faustian (talk)

For readers convinience also was suggested THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWS OF LWÓW, 1941-1944 at Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust. Contributors: Philip Friedman - author, Ada June Friedman - editor. Publisher: Jewish Publication Society of America. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1980. and p.347-355 Browning, Christopher. The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004. ISBN 0803213271 - both avialable online and provide similar story . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is complaining about those two sources. it's the works published by Ukrainian institutes that you said are freely available in the library of the Ukrainian parliement. It is not reasonable to expect people to be able to travel to Kiev to verify things.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Same scholar publication published by Institute of History of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine - s already used [98] and accepted in many articles

Would be nice if you can check this [99] book page 101 - I unable to find word spared as added here [100] .ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, do you even realize that if I copied word-for-word what Snyder wrote I would be committing plagiarism? Hmm, maybe you don't because you have a tendency to engage in plagiarism. On page 101 Snyder described Jews, not killed, witnessing their Polish neighbors getting murdered. Pg. 102 showed Ukrainian nationalists trying to figure out whether Jews were Poles. How much more of other people's time you want to waste?Faustian (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain the passage in the source ("...watched as they were murdered...") is correctly summarized by "were spared". The sentence doesn't logically entail the perpetrators deliberately "spared" the one group. The text could for instance also mean they were just lucky and weren't found, watching from a hiding place or something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 101 is not coming up on googlebooks. Snyder basically writes that often Jews were murdered when the entire village was but describes that sometimes Ukrainian murderers were more careful and left them alone; the point is that they weren't the main target. I'll try to get to a library sometime.Faustian (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest - to clarify text - a book used for this sentence Dubno : sefer zikaron / ha-'orekh, Ya'akov 'Adini. Tel Aviv, 1966 - it suggest lucky and weren't found, watching from a hiding place . (page 717 )ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Crooked Object

Hi Future,

I'm glad you like most of the redirects. Thanks for contacting me about Crooked object; I can see why it might be better directed elsewhere. As such, I have redirected it to the Crook disambiguation page where there is a list of crooked objects in the "other uses" section. Great job on the Sampi article! It looks like it could be a featured article with a little tweaking, and I'd love to see an article about a letter get featured.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask for intervention

Hello! I wouldn't bother you but I'd like to have your opinion. I'd posted a thread in the WP:ANI, but it didn't help. Please read it first here. After the official source I added in Piraeus [101] and a short period of calming down, the same user started an edit war in Olympiacos F.C. using his account (the article is semiprotected), but I can't follow him since he disputes any source (even the official) and I feel exhausted after we'd discussed it to death, since he ignores any other editor, warnings and rules. He doesn't care about any official source, he does an original research to prove that Piraeus isn't part of the Athens urban area, he is the only one who supports his view, he caused a lot of trouble in several articles, and what he only wants is to put on the map what he believes. I've listed him here in the WP:SPI with no improvement for several days. Unfortunately nobody looks willing to deal with the whole issue, except for some temporary semiprotections and warnings to him. Could you help? Any idea? - Sthenel (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba's debates

I'm wondering whether Vecrumba's topic ban covers debating EE-related POV and battleground disputes, like he is doing here? Offliner (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Seleukosa

I have replied to Seleukosa|your comment on my talk page, and, as you will read there, changed my decision on the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I find that the reply I thought I had posted didn't arrive, because of an edit conflict. I may as well just post it here:

Actually I was reading that comment and preparing a reply to it while you were posting here, and your comment swayed me to change my decision. Thanks for your input. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

218 th police battalion

Resurrected again [102] after [103]. Blanking [104] and semi-blanking[105]. Jo0doe (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest also which details for source cited were missed [106] [107] as source treated as ", no source" - I can send you a photo of it it together with pages cited. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Another revert [108] of well cited text without attempt to explaine.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He simply removed your dishonest presentation of what that source said. Fixing it would have been better, but removing it was still better than leaving it there.Faustian (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this falls under the "stop wasting our time fact-checking lies" doctrine. --Львівське (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Distortion

Thanks to someone finding the Ukrainian source online, Jo0doe (talk) has been caught redhanded. This is a really, really bad manipulation of the source to push a POV. I'll incorporate what I wrote on the article's talk page. It's not about content, but the editor's behavior:

Thanks to Galassi, one of the sources was found online, here - Patrilyak (І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN p.228-241 ). It is used as a source for the claim "Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." Page 232, at the top "Насамперед, міліціонери (зокрема сільські) вико-нували роль самооборони, захищаючи односільчан від нападів розбитих та недисциплінованих залишків Червоної армії. Разом з цим міліція працювала як своєрідні "винищувальні батальйони", знищуючи залишених на німецькому боці фронту організаторів комуністичного підпілля та радянських пара- шутистів-диверсантів. Народна міліція в містах і містечках слідкувала за правопорядком; дотриманням комендантської години; конфісковувала в насе- лення зброю; реєструвала колишніх радянських функціонерів і спеціалістів присланих зі східних областей УРСР; повертала речі, вкрадені з державних складів і магазинів; охороняла всі важливі об'єкти; знищувала залишки радянської символіки; проводила слідчі дії в кримінальних справах. Згідно із жорстокими законами воєнного часу, службовці НМ розстрілювали на місці осіб спійманих на грабежах, крадіжках особистого чи державного майна, переховуванні незареєстрованої зброї або радянських службовців, офіцерів чи диверсантів. Непоoдинокими були також випадки участі міліціонерів як допоміжного персоналу в німецьких антиєврейських акціях. Принаймні відомо, що міліціонери займались обов'язковою реєстрацією єврейського населення, слідкували за тим, щоб євреї носили відзнаки із зіркою Давида й безкоштовно працювали на громадських роботах."

Feel free to use googletranslate to verify. Basically, the passage states that: "first of all the duty was to defend the local population from attacks by the shattered and undisciplined remnants of the Red Army, they also killed organizaers of Communist uprisings or Soviet parachutists caught behind the German lines, maintained order by confiscating weapons, registering former Communist officials and specialists that had been sent from the eastern regions of Ukraine, returned things that had been stolen from state warehouses and stores, defended important points, destroyed symbols of Soviet power and were involved in solving criminal cases. In line with brutal wartime policies, members of the People's Militia shot on site people caught looting, theft of personal or state property, hiding unregistered firearms or Soviet agents, officers or diversionaries. Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs."

Based on the passage above, Jo0doe (talk) writes ""Members of the Ukrainian People's Militia took part in round-ups of Jews for mass executions and participate in it, escorted Jews to their forced labour sites and create an early ghettos." He obviously presents an utterly distorted version of what this source says the People's Militia was about. He doesn't mention their other duties at all. He pushes his POV to the detriment of the article. Based on this source at least, the People's Militia was mostly about maintaining order and preventing Communist uprisings. Assisting the Germans in anti-Jewish actions was a minor role for them. Yet this entire article about the Ukrainian People's Militia is constructed by Jo0doe (talk) to make it look as if their primary function was to kill Jews (which this source doesn't even say they did!). Seriously, don't you think this guy needs sanctions? Shouldn't editors be allowed to spend their time making constructive contributions rather than hunt out distortions?Faustian (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Editor suggest that the text Not rarely, there were also cases where the militamen took part in German anti-Jewish actions. does not appeared at text above . Or, may be, he suggest different meaning for German anti-Jewish actions, I guess - a different from suggested at another scholar sources cited? Or may be "not rarely" mean a "minor role'? I guess. - its exactly same argumentum verbosium - as used before here [109] Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, the text clearly specifies what those anti-Jewish actions were: "It's known that militiamen took part in obligatory registration of the Jewish population, making sure that Jews wore identification with the star of David and that they worked without getting paid at community jobs." Don't excuse your getting caught red-handed by synthesizing from what you've read elsewhere.Faustian (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

More disturbing than your distorted presentation of that phrase was your refusal to acknowledge the paragraph you cited from, in order to present a picture utterly different from the one the author created. The author dscribes in comprehensive detail all the various actions the militia did, stating that the most important one was protecting civilians from maruading Red Army troops. All of this, you ignored in order to deliberately create a distorted picture of this militia. Faustian (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

People, I'm sorry, but you may already have noticed that I am not finding the time and energy to sort this out. I strongly suggest you guys go for either a user conduct RfC or a WP:AE request. However, I would caution everybody that banhammers might be falling in several different ways there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your time. I realize it's a mesy situation and a lot to ask to sort through it. There's a very black-and-white example here: [110] but I'll go elsewhere.Faustian (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

False accusations abut another editor

Now Jo0doe (talk) is falsely accusing me of belonging to the infamous Eastern Europe mailing list, even though that group discussed engineering my ban. Look at this. "Seems to me not all WP:EEML [111]. plague were uprooted..." 15:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language

There is an open RfC at Talk:Croatian language. If you're interested, your input would be welcome. --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism in Armenians page

The user Parishan is vandlizing the Armenians page. Not only he didnt comment about his recent changes on the page, that he said he commented about in the talk page, but he completly changed all the recent edits that the users recently, including yours, have made. Please watch for this vandal, he has been here before, not the first time. Aryamahasattva (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Intervention

I've started a discussion here and it's related to a similar one [112] you helped to deal with, so yet please clarify this again because 18th and 19th century sources reappeared.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Croatian RfC note

An editor made an edit in the section after you closed it [113], so you may want to pull that out of the coloured section or revert it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JorisvS has replied to the addition by Mir Harven. I wrote on both editors talks that I think posting in a closed RfC was the wrong thing to do, and told them both I informed you. Sorry to cause trouble. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Personally, though, I wouldn't bother too much about such edits. Let it just peter out, I'd say. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

One more sock of Stanovc

• Whatelsetodo (talk · contribs) is a obvious sock of user

• Stanovc (talk · contribs)

• Scoillorcain (talk · contribs) (Maybe to confirm, blocked one month ago by you)

Thanks, bye! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I know. He finally submitted an unblock request under his old Stanovc account, and since his recent edits, for all their sockishness, seem to have been objectively constructive in general, I would say he stood a good chance of getting it accepted, but then instead another admin told him it was moot because he had that new account anyway, so I guess what that boils down to is he's now more or less "officially" allowed back in under that new name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, i just wanted to point it out. Thanks. All best! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you clarify the time period/limit on these sanctions, [114] please. No time was given. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm referring to the 1RR sanction. Thanks again.(olive (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, I know, I didn't set an expiry date. Which means it's essentially open-ended. I hesitate to say "indefinite" because that has such a mean sound to it in wikipedia jargon. Of course this should be reviewed at some point; give it a few months, but I'd like to first see how the overall situation settles down in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.(olive (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC))

IP editor evading topic ban?

Does this IP editor remind you of anybody? Varsovian (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Stigma

Yes, stigma is otherwise not a "letter," but it is only in a very limited sense that it can be classified as a "name" for digamma. This is just ontologically wrong. Stigma properly refers to a ligature used in writing Greek -- as its name attests -- and even its numeral usage cannot be fully classified under the heading of digamma--that would be to confuse origin with result, and to call even the Modern Greek usage στʹ (implausibly) a funny way of writing digamma. It's my opinion that your drive to rationalize the treatment of Greek writing went a couple of steps too far in this case, and that stigma should be broken back off of digamma. The constellation Ϝϝϛ, explained "Ϝ, lowercase ϝ; as a numeral symbol: ϛ," is WP:OR or close to it. Which authoritative treatments of Greek writing agree with thus subsuming stigma in general as a variant of digamma? (I would have no objection to, "as a numeral symbol, also represented by ϛ.") I'm hard pressed to apply such an understanding of stigma to reading the stigmas here. They are neither digammas nor properly considered under the heading digamma. Wareh (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the above before feeling bold enough to do some reverts. So in retrospect your personal talk page might not be the best place for it; let's move it to Talk:Digamma if you feel this requires debate. Wareh (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob, let's take it to Talk:Stigma (letter) though, where I started the discussion the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Beserks

User:Beserks has no connection with Guildenrich whatsoever. The former is an erudite person and writes very well in English, the latter was a disruptive account to whom I was several times compared, unfortunately. Why does a new Albanian user have to go through all this I really don't know. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

An award

In case you haven't notice I have given you the greatest award of all. Thank you again for your efforts.Seleukosa (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

		This is not an Elephant award
		I, Seleukosa, award FuturePerfect with this Not an Elephant Award, for helping me not to be confused with an elephant!

Albanian origins

Aigest is trying to explain what synth is here but as usual your input and explanation will be needed to clarify this.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia a reliable source? No. 108 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pelasgian theory"

Sulmues is bent on making this "theory" more respectable than it actually is through various weasel-wording gimmicks such as these [115] [116]. The old version is clearly better worded and more encyclopedic. Any help would be appreciated. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a compromise edit. Some parts of Sulmues' version were preferable, I think, but I agree with you that the "obsolete" part should not be downplayed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was my main concern. We also have this [117], a blast from the past. Athenean (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Mystery of the Letters

Thanks for shedding more light on an obscure topic. You will get a barnstar from me if you could expand Isopsephy and make it to DYK :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I know very little about isopsephy, I'm afraid, over and above the simple facts of what the numbers are. And I'm still planning to finish my two sandboxes first. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for About the Mystery of the Letters

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maps falsification

This is a user's map about the Illyrians [118] and these are the source maps from Wilkes [119] [120]. As you can see he moved entire Illyrian tribes to the north for the usual nationalist reasons like the Bylliones who in the source maps are in the Vlorë area, but in his map they are found in the Fier region. It would be great if you could help with the new maps, since I haven't created any yet.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I won't probably find much time working with maps in the near future. But feel free to use File:Yugoslavia topographic base map.svg or File:Greece large topographic basemap.svg, if they are of any help. (If you can get hold of Inkscape, you can manipulate the coloured relief layers and the coastlines/rivers etc. separately, add new legends, coloured overlay layers and whatever else you need.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant and essential?

Does this look relevant or essential for the article?(a second opinion would be welcome)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why we should get rid of this well known event in Greek tradition (apart from the usual reasons). I don't believe that Hammond writes nonsense. Also the recent activity of Zjarri by removing and questioning academic sources (adding -cn- tags) is really disruptive.Alexikoua (talk)

I didn't remove any source, so please don't continue the usual misinformation. I'm asking FutureP because I'm interested in his opinion. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Then hope you don't remove them again (Kustrim as well).Alexikoua (talk)

(unindent)When did I remove them for the first time(bring a dif)?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. How do you put a notice. complaint about conduct/ an issue regarding single editor's actions relating to a particular article ? Hxseek (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Seems there's a new account of an old user: [[121]]. Notice that he knows where to edit on other user's subpages.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, please see here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops didn't notice that.

You might be instersted on Guildenrich's new reincarnation. Please see [[122]], the cu findings are possible/likely, while the behavior is again very similar.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Aristotelis Goumas

Please see Murder of Aristotelis Goumas. It is clearly a hate pusher. Apart for the fact that the case is not finished this is a totally biased and unacceptable article. Please note that there are many Albanians killed in Greece by extremists and even police forces, but Albanians editors have refrained themselves writing about them to avoid this nationalistic heat. Please intervene before this thing gets bigger. Rgs Aigest (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we get agreement on the title, at least, at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#title and content of an article related to Aristotelis Goumas? Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bardylis etymology

Some times ago you have expressed this opinion on the subject, citing "What you would need is a reliable academic source actually proposing the link between this modern phrase and the ancient name". I followed your advice and checked the sources. Actually there are many sources explained here even with online links which claim that actually the etymology for Bardylis is Alb. "white"(Kretschmer, Mayer, Rosetti, Ivic, Demiraj, etc) not "white star", while for the etymology "White Star" Mann explains it as a tradition (folk etymology). According to the sources there was this simple sentence "The etymology of the name Bardyllis is related with the Albanian word Bardhi ~i bardhë "white",(many refs) although it is equated traditionally with Albanian i bardhë "white" and yll "star".(one ref). But apparently someone doesn't like this removing references twice first removal and second removal without even taking care to explain why those sources don't support that version, but jumping directly to the much (wrong) liked half sentence. Please give your opinion on the sources and the related sentence here Regards Aigest (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try and check. A link on "bardh-" alone sounds much more inherently plausible, that much I grant. Your wording you used above doesn't work in one point though, and I'd recommend avoiding that mistake in the article: we can impossibly say that "the etymology of Bardylis is Alb. white", for the simple reason that the name Bardylis is older than attested Albanian, so it can impossible derive from it. At most we could say that both of them share a common etymology. Moreover, in the sentence you want restored, the "although" is awkwardly worded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, probably Alb. Bardh derives from Bardyll, but anyway you got my idea. What about Linguistically Bardyllis is linked with Alb. Bardh meaning "white" in English, while there is also a popular etymology for his name meaning as "white star"? Aigest (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you find some time for this. I don't think Kretschmer, Mayer, Rosseti, Ivic are POV pushers, moreover modern Albanians. Aigest (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

• sigh* I guess the nature of being involved in Eastern European articles is conflict of some sort. On the article Massacre of Lviv professors I added a piece of info I came across: [123], with a source and link to a book by a professor at Kiev's National University, published by that country's Institute of History. Apparently 2 Polish editors with extensive block histories for national edit-warring, Molobo and Jacurek, and another editor who just appeared on this topic and only posts on it, don't like having this info in the article. A non-Polish independent editor wants its inclusion - follow this brief thread here: [124]. I filed an RFC here: [125]; only molobo responded. Looking at the edit history: [126] 4 editors have tried to include the information while the three mentioned have removed it. It is currently not in the article and I'm not edit-warring to keep it in. It seems unfortunate, to say the least, that 2 guys with their histories can veto information clearly sourced, with even a link to it for verification, to a source that obviously meets the criteria for being a reliable source, based on not liking it. Where do I go from here? AN3? - the 3 individually haven't violated 3R.Faustian (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This publication has some very controversial statements about Nazi collaboration and about Jewish population(at least using google translate since it is only available in cyrillic and Ukrainian). Per proper dispute resolution procedures I have put it on WPRS Noticeboard for discussion[127]. Also there an unclear issue if this is a claim by the author or by the people he describes(Nazi collaborators). Throughout the discussion Faustian has started using ethnic based claims about editors and ethnic groups and pointing out their nationality("I noticed that you are Polish") which I believe to somewhat incivil. Anyway I hope the dispute can be solved using WP:RS policies and WP:Verify. Best regards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply stated the fact that the three editors fighting the inclusion of this fact are Polish and 2 of them have a history of ethnic battlegrounding leading to many blocks. I included the statement and translation and link in the talk pages. Coming to an admin was also recommended here, by another editor who got briefly involved and who reverted the blanking. It seems like a pure example of people just not liking certain info and trying to keep it censored.Faustian (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well let's not spam FPS page, suffice to say that this info does go against established mainstream view and history, thus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources does apply. A translation by one of the editors(Joodee?) seems to claim that this claim is based on memoirs of OUN member from a Nazi unit. Anyway I suggest we move our discussion to the article in question.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! All of you stop this. Instead of forum shopping for admin intervention, how about discussing the issue in depth? There's some confusion about the source. There's some confusion about how it is being presented. There's some confusion about this source's relation to other sources. There's the intrinsic limitation of the source being translated from a different language. Quit. Discuss. And discuss the source not each other.radek (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very relevent that 2 of the 3 editors keeping referenced infromation (which an uninvolved admin has deemed to be "reliable" on the reliable sources noticeboard) off an article have very long block and ban histories due to ethnic-based edit-warring. We have a situation in which 4 people think the info belongs, 3 think it doesn't and 2 of those 3 have very spotty records. BTW, look at what User:MyMoloboaccount is up to now: falsely stating that something doesn't reflect a source (link to discussion:[128]) while himself misattributing what a scholar says: (link to my comment here:[129]). Yet because of the efforts of the likes of Molobo, referenced info is kept off this article. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask for admin advice or intervention and I'm not the only one who thinks so, as seen here.Faustian (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian "not very xenophobic and antipolish" doesn't mean "in general not xenopobhic", this is rather obvious.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed 2

Hi Future. I require assisstance/ feedback in regard to issues on the Scythians article. Basically, an editor, HonestopL is making POV edits, blindly reverting, and falsifying sources just to so to the opening sentnce in the 'Origins' section read that Scythians came from 'Greater Iran'. Despite the fact that I have numerous times repeated that such a term is vague, and has political connotation, he had disregarded this. Moreover, the actual sources never mention anything about Greater Iran- as I have pointed out in the discussion page. The various sources suggest variuos origins, including the Volga - Ural region, southern Siberia, northern Siberia. All these regions fall outside what is considered Greater Iran.

What's more, user Ian.Thomson appears to have a personal vandetta against me under the cloak that he is upholding WP: AFG and WP:CIVIL. But his carry on [130] plainy exposes his hypocrisy. he has taken it upon bimself to support HonestopL by randomly googling things about Scythians - and showing to me that they were indeed Iranian. they both appear unable to grasp that speaking an Iranic language doesn;t mean that a people come from the geographic region of Iran, greater or not. The Scythians were various groups sharing a similar, nomadic culture from the Eurasian steppe, well north of Iran, with a way of life which was foreign to the type of civilizations in the Iran/ Afghan region, such as the Achemenids and their successors. It's like hitting one's head against a brick wall with these two. i'd really appreciate your advice against what I think is unfair behaviour on their part. Hxseek (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just found this. Content/ethnic issue made worse by lack of patience. We have the content RfC process, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, the RS and NPOV boards, etc - ONE (only one at a time) would be a better idea than breaking 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, FuturePerf. As soon as the block you imposed on HonetstopL expired, he simply reverted the current version - which has been accepted by commentators [131]. It's not that he doesn't base his edits on sources, but, worse, he making an arguement which is entirely incositent with what the sources actually say, not to mention that he is going against concensus. Quite simply, he is not interested in trying to reach any compromise, despite numerous attempts at explanation. His edits are not only single-sided, but they present a POV which is his own confabulation, one not supported by even a minority of scholars. What's more, he is so short sighted and biased, that he has not even noticed the discrepency of what he writes with the opening introductory sentence of the article. His behaviour needs to be addressed please so this does not spiral out of control. This chap is simply not interested in a working solution Hxseek (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Whatelsetodo

...is a sockpuppet of User:Stanovc with various copyvio uploads on Commons and one here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I knew about the account (see here for explanations). About the image uploads, I'll check tomorrow (getting late here). I seem to remember one of those ancient coins websites had given a blanket license release to Commons once, so this might actually be okay after all. Need to look that up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Empathictrust (talk · contribs) as well, I think. Athenean (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning to J Bulten

The warning you gave to J Bulten is most improper. The matter was raised at ANI where the conclusion was that this is a matter of disagreement over style rather that editor conduct and that it should be resolved by means of an RfC.

In my opinion you are abusing your power as an admin to promote your own view on style in this article. Please withdraw your warning or I will raise the matter of your conduct on ANI. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-read the ANI report. You will see that the only editor who appeared to agree with you was tmorton166, and that was only because that user misunderstood you, interpreting RfC as RfC/U (as is evident from how that user closed the ANI thread). The style question has been settled a long time ago. Persistently ignoring such a strong consensus is disruptive. Hans Adler 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the ANI conclusion. There was no consensus on the 'Gadsby' talk page, this is style dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a style dispute. This is a case of disruptive editing so he can play a game and over ride what the rest of us are trying to do. On top of creating unreadable articles, he was also distorting basic facts to do so (that is, deliberately misleading readers). Take it to the bank that he, you, or anyone else who reverts that article or any others to that sorry state will be blocked for a good lone time.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure on what basis you presume to threaten me with a block. The dispute is about whether the article should be written as a lipogram, there was an RfC on this which brought me to the article and concluded that the body of the article should be written that way. Have a look through the article history, J Bulten is far from alone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Even an RfC is not entitled to form a valid local consensus that would override side-wide policy: that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in English, and not an experiment in funny word games. The warning therefore stands, and also extends to you if needed: if I see people making edits that demonstrably damage the quality and accuracy of the English prose for the sake of avoiding "e"s, I will block them. For vandalism, because that's what it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, I believe that you are improperly pushing your own opinion on the style of English to be used in the article and propose to take this to ANI. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, good, so if my contributions truly work toward "quality and accuracy" in my rational opinion, I can count on you for assuming good faith and not jumping in and manhandling things without a final warning? Thanks. JJB 04:52, 27 Oct 2010 (UTC)

I cannot formally topic-ban you from that page, and if you decide to edit it again I'm not going to count if there are any "e"s in your edit and automatically[ block you if there aren't. That said, however, I must inform you that your judgment of what is acceptable English and acceptable Wikipedia content appears to be so much off when it comes to this issue that I would consider a mere assumption of "good faith" of little value. If you were able to do this, this and this in a good-faith pursuit of proper quality and accuracy, this means it will be quite unwise on your part to rely on your own judgment of what quality and accuracy is in the future, because by now you must be aware your judgment differs from everybody else's. The wisest, and, if I may say so – given how thoroughly sick and tired the community currently is of this long-gone-stale joke and your shenanigans about it – the only decent decision on your part will be to simply leave the whole topic alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow Alternate account

User:Jack Sparrow 2 was run by Jack Sparrow 3, possibly a legitimate alternate account. It has only been used to edit once, but since 3 is indeffed, might be worth blocking that one too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that this anon IP is also User:Jack Sparrow 3. --Taivo (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI item

I have raised the matter of your threats to block dissenters here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_threats_for_disagreement_on_style Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Closed the AE request about Jack Sparrow 3

Hello FP. See my closure of the AE case. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. You're right about the process issue. To be quite precise, the original 2-weeks block was an AE measure and still stands as such; the subsequent indef wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your ruling on edits of Macedonia articles is solicited (again :)

Hi FP, would you take a look at these two articles when you have time Shtip and History of the Jews in the Republic of Macedonia. I've modified two sentences that were worded in a weasel way, pushing Bulgarian POV, and are either more clear in my wording or in the second case I've removed the sentence as irrelevant to the article (the controversial matter is explained elsewhere). Of course, Laveol was fast on my tracks, modifying everything back, and we cannot seem to agree on the proper wording. You can see the last edits and reverts with explanations in the history. thanks! Capricornis (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethinc falg

Hi, can you take a look at this case (tp - vh)? I would appreciate your opinion, thanks. --The White Lion (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright question

FPAS, you know your stuff about the copyright status of images, don't you? Please see File talk:Von Werra BF109 Marsden Kent.jpg, where I have raised a question about the status of an image. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on an issue at User talk:Paweł5586

I was checking WP:DIGWUREN#Log of blocks and bans, and notice you've taken some of the past actions regarding User:Paweł5586. I see that he has resumed edit warring at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, after making no response to my offer to let him off the hook if he would take a voluntary break. My inclination was at first to issue a two-week block for breaking the 1RR/day restriction on that article on November 5. But if normal escalation were followed, I suspect that we should keep on going up from your action of last February. Whatever is done in response to this latest incident would be logged under WP:DIGWUREN. The notion that Paweł5586 has improved after taking past warnings on board seems to be disproved by his recent edits. Do you think a one-year block is appropriate? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notification. I haven't been following him too closely of late, but if you have the impression he's back to his old pattern, then a longish sanction sounds logical. Last time I blocked him it was because he was just deliberately refusing to take any notice of the revert limitation, and this seems to be again what's happening. Feel free to impose whatever sanction you feel appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Iranian accounts @ Iran–Iraq War

Hi, would you care to take a look? I've started a thread at Incidents, which however hasn't attracted much sysop attention yet. Some otherwise problematic Iranian users have been POV pushing ad nauseam for years, trying to enter the US and/or Kuwait and/or Arab League and/or Soviet Union as Iraq's fellow combatants in the latter's war against Iran. They obviously don't have any no reliable/acceptable sources for such assertions, are generally being rejected by neutral editors (not just me), yet keep persistent small-scale edit warring. I've reported this POV-pushing, and I really think that additional topic bans for a bunch of those users would work. It's so disturbing having to face the same fringe theories every now and again. MIaceK (woof!) 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI Velebit again

Hi!

Since you are familiar with this case could you take a look here?--Kennechten (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Burning ears

Greetings -- just to let you know I took your name in vain here. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Carbine

FutureP Euzen has been adding in every Carbine related article that the word derives from the Greek word karavi(ship) quoting a 1885 Greek book. He keeps accusing me of being an Albanian vandal for pointing out that he can't use such a fringe and outdated source. His latest edit regarding that issue was on Carbine [132]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I found sock puppets. Where can I report it ? Takabeg (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This case Takabeg (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. Could you file a report at WP:SPI? Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tamam, merci. Takabeg (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Gjorche to Gyorche

Hi Future,

The Gjorche Petrov article was moved to Gyorche Petrov several months ago. If you google Gjorche Petrov it gives 41000 hits compared to 100 for Gyorche. Can you check it or please ask few other Wiki adminstrators to check it.

Tnx, (Toci (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

Thimi Mitko

I think that there's another case of or deductions, so please see Talk:Thimi Mitko. Some users think that drawing conclusions from a sentence of a 19th century article Mitko wrote is considered sourced material about his political beliefs and that an extreme nature is revealed whenever someone removes such deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The part is rephrased per source, I would appreciate if Zjrthues agrees this time.Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am heartily sick and tired of you both and your permanent ideological squabbles. You should all be permanently topic-banned from the whole area, the whole lot of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

FPS, you may be sick of all of us, but Alexi and Zjarri have brought a lot to the table with their contributions, and are some of the main writers of topics covering a very delicate area of the world (Epirus), which has been in wars for the last 2000 years between Greeks and Albanians, and believe me, we are the product of sources that are far from being reconciled. It is not our fault that sources are so far apart, we're just trying to bring them together, and it's not an easy job. Southeastern Europe is no Benelux, and will permanently have more problems in wikipedia than other areas, such as Scandinavian countries or in general western Europe. Rather than threatening topic bans, try to do what you do best, i.e. use your very good editing and research abilities, for instance, and lead by example, while using our built-in knowledge, because topic-banning experienced users will just bring less experienced users, and we'll have to go through that over and over again, and how is wikipedia going to improve?

I believe that contributors like Alexi and Zjarri look up to you like I do, and we come to ask for help, because we believe not only in your good admin skills, but also in your editor skills and general erudition. If you don't want to provide that help, please state so, and we won't bother you. If we come to you it is because we believe that you might be a good solution. We would understand if you don't want to be bothered. It is threats like the one above that are uncalled for and bring to detrimental results, because you bring in an atmosphere of fear, where everybody is going to be less productive.

You may also be pivotal in convincing a couple of Balkan editors, such as TodorBozhinov or Cplakidas to try an admin application, so that they can bear the burden of reconciling those differences. Right now there are 0 active Southeastern European admins from the whole 3000 ones that govern the English project, and that's a very poor nuumber. I have tried in vain to convince some, but you may be more efficient than me in that. --Sulmuesi (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yılmaz Güney

This article has been attacked by User:Karfiol whose singular interpretation of WP:Bio he has determined to remove the words Kurd/ Kurdish from the article Yilmaz Guney. Where as Yilmaz Guney in an interview(which continues to be deleted) unequivocally states that he is an "assimilated Kurd" and describes how his films were not allowed to contain the Kurdish language. This fact, I have argued establishes his notability concerning his Kurdish ethnicity, which is summarily ignored by User:Karfiol. I have therefore, removed the last reference which states Guney's Kurdish ethnicity(since User:Karfiol deletes the word Kurd regardless) and tagged the article as WP:OR and WP:SYN. If you have the time or inclination and would care to check, it would be greatly appreciated.

User:Karfiol was also intent on inserting the word "terrorist" in the opening paragraph of the Abdullah Ocalan article using WP:OR.[133]

Thank you for your time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If WP:Bio is to be interpreted according to User:Karfiol, should I remove Turkish from the article Fatih Akın, where it calls him Turkish-German?? What an interesting conundrum! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, please be aware of User talk:Karfiol#NPOV warning. I'm watching him. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Historian19

This is possibly a bit too complex for making a request at the page protection board, and a bit too pointless to open an SPI case for, so since you know enough to recognise him perhaps you could help please? Despite an IP editor claiming not to be a sock on Morocco, he is reverting back to a version by 41.140.182.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has also been editing Historian19 target Netherlands, specifically making this virtual near revert back to the version from February 2010 (the attempt the day before was identical). As I say a bit too complex for the page protection board but he is continuing to edit war on Morocco with dynamic IPs, so could you possibly semi-protect the page please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion

As someone how is (unfortunately for you :) well informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, you input will be highly needed at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OMG, are people still obsessing over infoboxes and article splits? Are people still arguing over whether an article should be split just so that the symbolism in the infoboxes will fit more easily? (What an absurd case of the tail wagging the dog.) In any case, my position remains unchanged [134]. I can't make much sense of the state of the talk page right now, without digging through months of discussion, so I wouldn't know where to register that opinion again at the present moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is not as much about splitting, as it is about problem presented there. Just read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split, and write at the bottom of that same thread. I know how much you are bored with this subject, but i am also! But that is not the reason to leave it as open wound. Just becose it hearts? Current state is not neutral as you proposed here. Please, read discussion, and post your opinion regarding that subject and proposition. There are tons of solutions, and we just need administrators help to chose the best one. Without it, this may last for years like this. Just read discussion. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

I'd like to request that sanctions placed on me here [135] be lifted. Thanks for your consideration.(olive (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC))

Merge discussion for Istanbul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Istanbul , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --İnfoCan (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosmas Thesprotos

I'm extremely sorry for leaving such a message in your talkpage, because you don't like such issues but unfortunately this is the only thing I can do to effectively deal with people who refuse to accept plain facts(and there's nothing else I can do apart from asking from people who are familiar with these issues for their own personal input). On Kosmas Thesprotos, Alexikoua has been insisting that the person was born in a village of modern Albania, but apparently official Greek sources disagree with him saying that he was born in a village with a similar name that existed in modern Anatoli municipality of Greece [136], but as you know Alexikoua will keep insisting based on a blog post that somehow he was born in Albania or that there's no Anatoli municipality in Greece(for which there's an article on the Greek wikipedia).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bombardment of Yeonpyeong

Please contribute to the discussion thread here. --Tenmei (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless when an administrator fails to explain -- especially when there is evidence of explicit, reasonable, and repeated requests for help in understanding. There is an implicit administrator obligation to participate in a teachable moment when it is coupled with the edit history here. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave you repeated explanations. It is not my fault if I cannot make it plain enough for you to understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try again to explain using different words. The search for consensus is thwarted by non-response in this context. Your actions were too hasty, premature. This is neccessary even if your view of this situation is entirely correct, and we are simply misunderstanding. What seems obvious to you is not obvious. --Tenmei (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bombardment of Yeonpyeong. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Better source request for File:Bouboulina.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Bouboulina.JPG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bouboulina.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Bouboulina.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Se la face ay pale.png needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Se la face ay pale.png is missing information as to its authorship (and or source) , or if such information is provided it is confusing.

Although images may not need author information in un-controversial cases, or where an applicable source is provided, such information aids those making use of the image, and helps verify the copyright status of an image.

If possible, please consider updating the media information page to make the authorship (and or source) of this media clearer.

If the media is your own work, please consider explicitly including your user name or using the {{own}} template on the media information page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Janu baba

Please see my comments at WP:ANI. I don't think a final warning is enough here. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei

I deleted File:Yeonpyeong_smoke_Nov2010.jpg because Tenmei uploaded over the original file, what appeared to be another version of the AP photograph, which he had taken from some blog or other, and he licensed it as PD (so the deletion was for bad license rather than bad FUR). I didn't get time to put that info in the deletion discussion before AnomieBot archived it. I have not blocked him...yet, but if he uploads any more non-free images with ridiculous FURs I might, and if he uploads that image again, I will. He can spend the time reading our image policies. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my participation in our Wikipedia project justifies ridicule. "Ridiculous" is word with meaning. --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Helpful vs unhelpful

Re: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 4
Please see comment here --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see edit summary here --Tenmei (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see diff here. --Tenmei (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a

Thank you for using a trout on this guy. It was only last week that this guy mistakenly believed that an article I wrote was not notable for inclusion because all of its references were of Japanese origin.

I honestly don't know why I bother leaving messages on the talk pages of IP addresses at times. I've only received a response once, and that's because they both have accounts but don't edit logged in all the time. The IP that Barts1a removed my warnings to has continued the disruptive editing, and aside from protecting the article (which won't happen because it has been consistently perceived as a conflict dispute rather than a user adding in false information), I don't know hwo to get these edits to stop. It does not require a talk page discussion, because obviously the IP doesn't know that the talk pages exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dale Robertson pic

A standing ovation to you on your close of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 25#File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg. It addressed all the arguments beautifully, though I'd almost put money on it ending up at Deletion Review within the next week. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check article about Ukrainians

Sorry for any inconvenience, but please check the work of several users when it comes to a site about Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture in general. Results of several users are evident example of intolerance towards Ukrainians and their culture. Users do not use facts and sources and they also deliberately deleted relevant sources. I think that such work is a shame for Wikipedia. Administrators should particularly pay attention on hidden fascism of several users with completly antiukrainian sentiment and their usles interpretations. History of Russia and Ukraine is specialy not objectiv. Incompetent users often delete all traces of the existence of Ukrainians in Russian history and often does not allow others to engage in the work of the development of Wikipedia. I believe in honest and professional work but when I read articles about Ukrainians I realy dont see it. I hope you'll make an exception and help to remove abusers of Wikipedia when it comes to the articles about Ukrainians. Best regards! --SeikoEn (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AE query

I see you have posted recently as an admin at AE. Perhaps you could have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle? Jayen466 (talk · contribs) (who previously has a history of making almost his entire evidence presentation in the Scientology arbcom case be an attack against me) is attempting to use my report against Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) as a desperate tactic to railroad in yet another irrelevant attack against me. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding your response

In response to a personal appeal by Cirt you show up to AE, and impose this on Carbuncle? It seems highly inapporpriate to me. Not just because it was in response to Cirt's request just above, but because your remedy is beyond draconian. How can you ban an editor from reporting what they think is user misconduct regarding another editor? Any false reports, instances of hounding and harassment, or disruptive complaints can be dealt with as they come. I also fail to see how this is an "interaction ban" at all, as you claim, since it aims at only one of the two editors. Would you mind letting an uninvolved admin, who was not lobbied specifically to go to AE come up with the remedy. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't specifically go there because Cirt contacted me – I was well aware of the request before, and had commented as an admin on a related ANI thread previously. I am as uninvolved as can be. And I don't find this overly draconian at all – as I showed in my posting, there is quite substantial evidence that D.c. deliberately set up the conflict over this article in bad faith, in order to "get" Cirt. Given the extensive history of prior hounding, what I'm doing now is just what you say: "false reports, instances of hounding and harassment, or disruptive complaints can be dealt with as they come". We've had enough of them coming forward, now they are stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, you are not clear cut case of WP:INVOLVED but previously commenting on the ANI thread and imposing a sanction after this posting does seem to mean you more involved than not The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shrug. Admins take part in process discussions prior to imposing sanctions in related AE threads all the time. And as for Cirt's posting above, I swear, by my honour, I didn't even read it – other than glancing over the first few words to see what it was about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I kindly ask you once again to reconsider, allowing an uninvolved admin to handle the AE request. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. What is the appropriate forum to ask for an outside review of your decision? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding this even less appropriate after some links posted by RA. Is your decision the "boomerang" coming back to hit Carbuncle? Please do the right thing here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that FP is an involved admin for purposes of this case. Arbcom keeps reminding us that admins don't become involved in an issue merely by taking admin action or handling a matter at an admin forum. (To see Arbcom's definition of the term, search for 'uninvolved' in WP:ARBSCI). In my opinion, Cirt did not need to notify so many people, but we can live with that. If DC believes that their sanction was inappropriate, they can appeal it: (a) to Future Perfect, (b) to AE, (c) to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed tell me if you find the following scenario appropriate. 1) I file an AN/I about you, at which another admin tells you critically about your behavior, "blah, blah, blah, or this is going to become a boomerang for you." 2) Nothing happens at AN/I so I file an AE on your behavior. 3) Nothing is happening at AE so I then go to the admin who threatened you with the "boomerang effect" and say, "hey would you look at this AE I filed?" 4) That admin shows up an immediately bans you. That is exactly how this happened. I understand your point regarding the letter of the law about "involved" in this case, but I fail to see how you don't find this inappropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take this off my page now. You have opened up discussions in more than enough other places. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. My intention was to appeal to you personally, which is what I did at first. When you didn't oblige I did take it elsewhere, but the discussion continued here. I'll be glad to refrain from future comment and should Ed want to respond he can do so on my talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

I've asked for input on the above situation at AN/I. Please see - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_discretionary_sanction_at_AE.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and some help

Hi Future Perfect,

You may remember me from a few years ago when we worked on the bass violin article. If I remember correctly, you are knowledgeable in the music field. Can you please take a look at this article, and see if you have any suggestions? It seems to me that this qualifies as a neologism. All reliable sources disagree with the premise of the terminology. Still, I don't know if it quite qualifies for speedy deletion. Please respond here, or on my talk page if you get the chance.

Thanks.BassHistory (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

Hi,

I fail to understand why you have repeatedly removed an image from 2010 Nobel Peace Prize which was being used on grounds of 'historically significant fair use'. I would have agreed to its removal had there been BLP issues, but the article is not a bio, and there are no GFDL images available.. I believe that the image of the ceremony falls within that category of use, and that absence of same is detrimental to the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I only removed that image once so far, but I stand by my assessment. It has nothing at all to do with BLP, but with WP:NFCC. It is purely decorative, not itself the object of sourced discussion, and not needed for understanding the article; hence, it fails NFCC#8. It also lacks a meaningful fair-use rationale. "Of historical record" is not a meaningful criterion in NFC issues. I'll leave it open for the moment to what extent the BBC counts as a commercial news agency in the sense of WP:CSD F7 (do they make money by re-licensing their images to others?) In that case, using the image would be totally and immediately out, and subject to immediate speedy deletion. For now, I'll take it to FFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I still contend that you are applying a far stricter interpretation of WP:NFCC than is desirable for the good of the encyclopaedia, for the use of that image appears to pass all ten criteria (IMHO) although I admittedly did not argue out each point. As to the replacement image, it only captures one aspect that the previous image captured. I guess it's better than nothing. I'm not sure why you removed two non-free images, insisted on removing the important ceremony one but left one, though. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of AE sanctions

Please see this appeal of the WP:ARBSCI sanctions you recently imposed on me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind moving your response to Jehochman out of the Results section, which is reserved for uninvolved admins? You may disagree with me about your prior involvement, but as the sanctioning admin, whose sanction is being appealed, you are now clearly involved. Thanks bunches.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still uninvolved with respect to the overall situation. Everybody in that discussion will know what role I play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean you are given the opportunity to make the case for your own sanction, which is being reviewed, within the discussion by uninvovled admins about your own sanction? If that's correct then it makes my head spin. I'll leave this alone now. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dojarca at AE

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by Dojarca. I agree with your first comment and cannot see a reason for "sticking" it out. The two accounts have been strictly separated. Dojarca withdrew from editing in February 2010, soon after the EEML case closed, and has only reappeared in contexts directly related to the EEML disputes. I can see two reasons for him using his old Dojarca account.

1. MathFacts wants to keep his new account secret by staying away from old disputes.
2. It would be inappropriate socking for MathFacts to take part in Dojarca's disputes.

Please see my comment here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dojarca.

As to the question of whether it is appropriate to comment on the EEML case after withdrawing from the disputes. The EEML topic bans are only temporary and will soon expire. It is quite possible that we will again see the same participants in the same disputes. In the meanwhile I see a trend on the anti-EEML side: these editors too have withdrawn from the topic area – and for the most part, from following the edits of EEML members. This situation has only been possible because of the trust that the topic band are effective. Inability to enforce the topic bans fill force the anti-EEML side to activily engage in the topics and scrutinize EEML edits. I would find such an outcome most unwanted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymologies

Hi, please can you take part here? Thank you. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, I think it's cleared. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Second request

I see my first request to have a sanction lifted has been archived. I would like to request again that the sanction on me here [137] be lifted. If this is something you don't have the time or inclination to deal with please let me know. Thanks very much for your consideration.(olive (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

Sorry for not answering sooner. I wanted to see what happened with the AE request. I still have some reservations about the kind of editing atmosphere I am seeing on those pages, but since apparently some of the other editors feel that your participation has been significantly better than that of some others, and now that ESL has been excluded for a while, I guess we can give it a try [138]. Needless to say, I would still recommend being very careful about reverting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to think about this. (olive (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

Your recent actions at AE

I am somewhat surprised that you commented that you had not read Cirts canvas of you considering that it took place some 20 minutes before your actions against DC.

Further, considering that it was Cirt that had brought the ANI, the AE and 2 rounds of inappropriate admin canvassing, why did you impose "including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against User:Cirt in any forum" on DC? I can understand that you may have been working under imperfect knowledge at the onset, but at this point in time it is your responsibility under due diligence to review the evidence presented and reflect on your actions. Have you done so? un☯mi 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Whatever the procedural correctness of the sanction, in terms of the merits of the case I still stand by my assessment of the situation. By the way, you got the timing wrong. In any case, I had been reviewing the issue before Cirt posted on my page.

I will also state that this [139] is not the style of collegial interaction I expect from a fellow administrator among users at AE. You are not entitled to unilaterally override a sanction that is still validly logged at the Arbitration log. If you feel an AE case against Cirt should be heard, you are quite welcome to re-file it in your own name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you hand down sanction at 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC) and you were canvassed at 15:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC), so that was 4 hours and 20 minutes earlier. You say that you stand by your assessment of the situation, could you clarify if you mean 'at the time' or that upon reviewing the appeal thread and its evidence and concerns raised by fellow editors that you still feel that your sanction should stand? un☯mi 10:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that an editor who was prepared to deliberately break BLP in a WP:POINT maneuvre made for no other purpose but to create an opportunity to "get" an opponent should be prevented from filing yet more complaints about that opponent, yes. The only serious arguments I've so far heard against the sanction are about bureaucratic red tape, not about the substance; if fellow administrators are so stuck with "proper process" that they will override the sanction on those grounds, I can't stop them – but this hasn't happened yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet, the evidence that DC brought in the AE thread that you removed(and elsewhere) argued that Cirt routinely breaks BLP, apparently as a concerted personal investment. I have not seen Cirt answer these charges, anywhere, instead Cirt took to canvassing at least 7 admins with appeals that included casting aspersions about other editors. Your past and current actions impede an editor with the energy and experience to bring these things to light, so that they may be laid to rest once and for all. Was there a point violation? I would agree that there was, was there a point to be made with it? I think that we owe it to wikipedia to find out, and we shouldn't let "bureaucratic red tape" and "proper process" get in the way of that. un☯mi 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said multiple times now, if you feel the complaint has merit (and I agree it may well have), then by all means file it yourself. We don't need D.c. for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that in all likelihood we do, I frankly do not wish to become embroiled in the Scientology articles, I certainly don't feel like doing the forensic footwork through Cirts 4.5 year history of editing in that area and I doubt I have the energy to see such a complaint through, I am engaged in a number of articles that I view as problematic at the moment. For whatever reason, DC seems to have that motivation. All I ask is that you support an alternative remedy which would allow that to go forward, even a 1rr on BLP or instruction to discuss all BLP related changes on talkpages first would have removed the 'threat' of further BLP issues, if the impression was that there was a pattern of behavior. un☯mi 10:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

AE request regarding Cirt

Future Perfect, I am going to assume that you missed the disclaimer posted in my AE filing, which linked to this comment by Jehochman. Regardless, I hope by now that you have reconsidered your original judgment in the sanctions you imposed upon me -- which have now been lifted -- and have a better grasp of the situation. I understand that some editors will find my actions and my words upsetting, but in a case involving a well-respected admin, it is necessary to be direct in order to get past people's preconceptions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Carian, Spanish and Acarnania

I don't know if you can recall the fringe sourcing of Euzen on Carbine, but he used the same source for some even more fringe deductions about a Spanish word deriving from a Carian one, which was preserved in Acarnania[140].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice seeing you

Nice seeing you at the Aegean Sea talkpage. Merry Christmas. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger without consensus

Hello Future Perfect, I have an issue with a page I just created, Outside (jazz). User: Hyacinth has merged his article side-slipping with it, and edited the resulting article so that the content conflicts significantly with what the sources are saying. All of this was done without consulting the talk page of either article.BassHistory (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question.BassHistory (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This situation is verging on edit warring. I haven't heard back from you. Are you busy, should I take it to another admin?BassHistory (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a

I don't know what you want to make of this, but when I report a long term vandal, I expect it to be eventually acted upon by an actual administrator and not be removed by someone who doesn't know how the site's rules work.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've suggested blocking Barts1a at the relevant ANI thread. I would do it myself, but I have to sleep now, alas. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BFU images

Hi, do you know whether or not images taken by the Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung are in the public domain, or on a Wikipedia-compatible licence? Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Schwa and Illyrians

Please check the schwa section I started on Albanian language(I know that a rounded vowel doesn't qualify in most cases as a schwa). Btw thanks for your intervention yesterday and check the latest or[141]. Wilkes's so most modern scholars can assert with confidence that Illyrians were not a homogeneous ethnic entity, though even that is today challenged by historians and archaeologists is interpreted by Alexikoua as According to the modern archeological community it is certain that the Illyrians didn't share any kind of common ethnic identity.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Would these graphs [142] be useful if I uploaded them?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced all of the schwa coverage is relevant and correct, but I don't know anything about the topic. Your wording makes it seem as if the IE */ə/ survived as a phoneme all through the history of Albanian, but from some details I picked up, it appears as if most IE schwas actually ended up as other vowels, and only a small subgroup are actually reflected in Alb. schwa. And that group, for all I know, could just as well be a late innovation that just happened to have reintroduced a schwa sound where none existed in the meantime. (IE */pətēr/ is reflected in English paternal, which also happens to have a schwa, but that doesn't mean it was "preserved" as a phoneme all the way.) As for the graphs, they seem far too specialist and technical to be of interest to a general-audience coverage, and uploading them would also not work copyright-wise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I should probably change the wording because some cases aren't related to schwa preservation but to denasalization. Btw regarding that Stratioti fringe theory I don't think that Euzen comprehends the issue [143].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on talk pages and articles

Is there anything you can do about this user[144]? His/her edits have consisted of comments of Ataturk's sexuality and Turkish sexuality. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You might add this user[145]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dodona sock in action

Some kind of action may be needed here [[146]] since he is a reincarnation of an old account [[147]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Anna Cienciala.jpg

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files Paragraph F7, point 3. Quote: "If the replaceability is disputed, the nominator should not be the one deleting the image." Thanks, all the best to you. — Raczko (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That must have been added recently, it wasn't there when I last looked at it. In any case, this was such a straightforward case there was not a snowball's chance in hell the outcome would have been different if somebody else had processed it. These are absolutely routine cases, and the kinds of objections you raised have been brought forward and overruled a thousand times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Needless to say, I'm not going to recommend you follow such a strategy in the future. Rules only work when everyone plays by them. — Raczko (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank's for your help

File:CUcuta.NeaPaidagogia.jpg

• I have fixed the image description for you. Please do not declare images like that as "your own work", because obviously it isn't. Please be so kind and also add the immediate source you got this from, i.e. the web page or the book you scanned it from. (The ultimate "source" is, of course, the 1797 book itself, and that's okay because it means it's in the public domain now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you ! (Makedonovlah (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Coolmartini

Something smells really weird in this situation. Considering that he was unfairly blocked ca. a month ago as part of a arbmac restriction that was 'lifted' from September 2.Alexikoua (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought I missed something. ;)  狐 FOX  21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian grammar

Hello Future. I am curious about one thing and I decided to ask you since you may know more about EN Wiki then me. Is there any practice of making articles about tenses of the languages, such as Macedonian Present Simple? On MK Wiki, we have such things, one article per each grammatical tense and other gramm. features (here and here) even though they are not complete yet, but I do not know about here. I wanted to translate some of the Macedonian articles, but I am not sure whether it is acceptable according EN Wiki rules. Best,--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A topic like "X'ian present tense" would be too fine-grained, I think. What would it contain, beyond a single table of forms? What we do have for some languages are articles on the level of "X'ian morphology", or maximally "X'ian verb inflection". If you are going to work on anything like that, please be aware that grammar articles should ideally not just focus on paradigm tables, but contain substantial prose discussion explaining the typological characteristics of the forms, their diachronic background, comparison with related languages, dialect differences, competing linguistic analyses and the like. If it was merely tables, it could go to Wiktionary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know whether you have seen the Macedonian articles, but basically there are three major section: how is made, form with tables and examples and usage. Sometimes there are other characteristics mentioned as well. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Dacian script.
Message added 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removal of link to Dacian Lead Tablets and Codex Rochonczi, Fake or Real? Codrin.B (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

reply

please see my reply here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:History_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Entries_to_section_redirects Mactruth (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

FWIW Codrinb was also canvassing on the Romanian Wikipedia last night [148]

Avem nevoie de opiniile voastre obiective legat de la articolul en:Dacian script vandalizat, rescris si propus pentru stergere. Varianta engleza en:Sinaia lead plates este si ea sub atac din toate directiile. E trist cand oamenii nu-si pot pastra obiectivitatea si controla agresivitatea.

English:

"We need your objective opinions regarding the [English Wikipedia] article Dacian script, vandalised, rewritten and proposed for deletion. The English version of Sinaia lead plates is also under attack from all directions. It's sad when people can't maintain objectivity and control their aggression."

Not sure throwing the word "objective" in there makes this request objective. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, I slapped an Arbmac warning on him earlier today, and if he continues, he might soon be ripe for WP:AE. Let's wait and see if he can pull himself together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I accept your criticism, however given this dialogue, please allow me the right to question your own objectivity and neutrality. However, leaving aside the recent conflict started by Anonimu, please take a close look at the entire change history of those two articles and tell me where I was wrong in my assessment of the situation. Thank you. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Sinaia lead plates.
Message added 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Help with student image uploads

Thanks for the help and clarification. I'll talk to the students and recommend they take a photo next time they visit their hometowns for addition to Wikipedia. I don't know if I can explain the public domain stuff well enough for them to understand and translate for the copyright holders and have them release the images into the public domain or at least under proper licensing. Working across language and culture barriers certainly has its drawbacks.

We'll have our final class tomorrow and I'll be sure not to make the same error with the next session of students. I really appreciate you messaging my talk page as well so that I can help them understand your message.

They've been using their user pages as a personal sandbox to work out the kinks in their pages before having them go "live" as it were, but I'll make sure the images get taken down from there as well.

Things have sure changed since I started working with Wikipedia back in 2002 as User:kimberlyhogg. I'm excited to be involved again and that it's grown so much.

Mskhogg (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sharad_Kelkar_300.jpg

Hello There,

I have just uploaded this subject image and have added the website link to the description. Kindly tell me wot would be the appropriate license tag for this image.

Regards,

Tinasinster (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no appropriate license tag for it. Such images simply cannot be used. The only ways you can include a portrait of an actor is if you go meet them and take a photograph of them yourself, or you contact a photographer who owns such an image and persuade them to release it under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. Perhaps if you are lucky you might get such an image from the actor's managers. But you cannot just take one from a website; it has to be explicitly declared free for everybody's use by its owners. Please don't upload any further images now, until you are certain you have really understood our image use policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Custovic

I was about to post an ANI notice on this guy ... he came back after a two-year break, and most of his uploads have been copyvios. And he's been doing it on Commons too ... this image is an exact copy of this. I'm thisclose to reporting him--should I still? Blueboy96 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Saguamundi

Hello FP. You imposed a 1RR/day restriction under WP:ARBMAC at User_talk:Saguamundi#Warning. Did you understand this 1RR as applying to *all* his edits or only to his edits of Balkan-related articles? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Tinasinster's talk page.
Message added 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cultural edit-warring advice?

Given your experience at handling edit warring and WP:BATTLE problems tied to cultural disputes, can you make some recommendations on how to handle the multi-article edit-warring and disputes around Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? I recently ran across it at Culture of Nagorno-Karabakh, and noticed a related dispute at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivil_comments_by_Xebulon that involves the same editors. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll just keep an eye on it and see how it plays out. If it gets worse, I'll bring it up on ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing CSD eligibility for older content

I've put a proposal on the Village Pump about this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi urgent

It seems these were tagged for no-license, but for some reason the uploader never got informed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MClub.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mountain-view-tarrazu-near-quepos-costa-rica-pacific-coast.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View-quepos-coast-from-tarrazu-mountains-pito-costa-rica.jpg

Ideally the deletion clock needs a reset. Thanks in advance

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About number one I wouldn't bother, that seems to have been a serial copyvio uploader anyway, so I wouldn't expect any useful info from them. About the Costa Rica photos, it seems to be a series that are plausibly all genuine own work by the uploader and genuinely intended for free release, but he didn't do the description pages consistently. In some cases he said "own work, public domain", in other cases he just said "own work" and somebody else later supplied the "public domain" for them, in yet others he didn't say anything, but it's all evidently uploaded with the same intention and comes from the same camera. It's not quite by the book, but I'd personally find it justifiable to just put in the missing declarations for him as he clearly intended. It's probably not much worth waiting for input from the uploader himself – he had sufficient notifications about other items in the series, and didn't respond to those either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia scope clarifications and disclaimer

Hello! Given the potential for conflict and suspicions raised by the WikiProject Dacia , I added an important notice for scope clarifications and disclaimer in the intro section. If interested and willing, please review and provide any feedaback and suggestions you may have. Thank a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Korçë

Republic of Korçë is an article created by User:Antidiskriminator and its quality is very low. Can something be done to rewrite it? He has quoted Albanian and French sources despite the lack of language knowledge, while almost all of the article is copy/pasted from other articles he has written like Bulgarian occupation of Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts

It exists! And...it's lonely, so very lonely :( Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

RfAR

Are you there, little Futzilla? Bishonen | talk 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

… Wer ruuuuufet miiiiir? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your ten-day block of NinaGreen

Today's block of NinaGreen is stated to be on the grounds of "tendentious editing at Shakespeare authorship controversy and related pages". I do not agree that NinaGreen's editing of those pages is tendentious, and the block also seems likely to prejudice the outcome of a due process which you are aware of. Also, should you not be leaving some explanation of your block on NinaGreen's talk page?

I have noticed from the above section headed "RfAR" that you are on playful terms with Bishonen, who is heavily involved in this matter and whose lack of respect towards NinaGreen and others (including myself) seems remarkable. Given that, there seems to me to be a problem with the perception of your intervention. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If Nina wants, I can lift the block and add a longer one myself. I hardly know Bishonen or Future Perfect at Sunrise, but as an administrator, I have found their analysis to be spot on. NW (Talk) 04:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are an administrator, then you must be aware of the Wikipedia standard of fairness and objectivity. I have simply corrected some misstatements by Stratfordians about what anti-Stratfordians believe. The blatant attempts to discredit those who sincerely love Shakespeare but disagree with the traditional orthodoxy is certainly contrary to Wikipedia standards of objectivity and credibility. Why are the posters to the authorship site resorting to ad-hominem attacks? What has happened to civility in these pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpope (talk • contribs) , 11:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A question about politician photos

Hi Future hope you don't mind me picking your brain a moment. Can you think of any way I could legally use photos of various Missouri legislators if they're copied from the official government website? Would some form of "fair use" or "public domain" apply since they're elected officials? Or would I have to get written permission from the Secretary of State or whatever(a big hassle). Here's the website I mean: http://www.house.mo.gov/ It would enhance each Wiki if I could put a "head shot" of each legislator on there if there's a way to do it w/o breaking the rules here. Any suggestions? Sector001 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to search a bit for the website's copyright declaration page. Some US states have rules analogous to those of the federal government that make all gov material PD, others don't; they'd usually say that somewhere. If they are not automatically PD, probably the only option is to write to the individual politicians and ask for a free release. Politicians' PR managers are often eager to have a nice Wikipedia page, so chances aren't bad they might comply. Some of them even have their own Flickr channels and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Question by about two dog pictures

I would like to post these two pictures on the "Bully Kutta" article. Lens14115701 1286592601bully kutta.jpeg Dog fight.jpeg I know for a FACT that these pictures are not copyrighted by anyone and are free to be used. Can you please get back to me regarding this issue. Thank you. regards, NapoleonARS

So, what is there origin, and why do you think they are not copyrighted? You'll have to explain a bit more. Who made those photographs? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to get permission for the first picture. It is from the "http://beasts-from-the-east.webs.com" website. The second picture is from a movie clip that I just copied. What is the procedure to be able to post them? -- NapoleonARS

If you can get permission, that will be okay. Please note it will have to be an explicit license for everybody, not just for Wikipedia, and there will need to be proof of it. About the movie clip, it's under the copyright of whoever made the movie, so we're back at square one with that one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-Uploading File:Mcafeeheadquarters.jpg

Hello. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble re-uploading a new version of this image. Can you please direct me towards any guidance? Thank you Adc1999 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:Megumi kanda.png

{Response to User_talk:Johnson487682#Replaceable_fair_use_File:Megumi_kanda.png)

Thank you for notifying me of this omission. I have contacted both the publisher of the source image and the MSO requesting permission to use this, or a similar, image. Johnson487682 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you could get them to release the image for us, that would be great of course. Please keep in mind that in order for us to be able to use it under our free-content policies, we will need a release under a fully free license, such as CC-BY-SA, not just a permission for use on Wikipedia alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not able to receive permission, so I have uploaded my own image instead. Johnson487682 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Darling

Now, now! Foolish little users!

Oh darling I can't stand this secrecy anymore. Let's tell the whole world of our love! Bishonen | talk 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

Oh Bish, Bish! I don't know what to say. Together we shall defy the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

[Bishzilla sighs gently, thinking of her own romantic youth. Regards the foolish little users with tolerance. Stuffs them into her pocket, pats them down firmly. Sternly :] And no funny business in there! bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

I KNEW SOMETHING WAS UP! I tried to rationalise that you were just busy. "Maybe she has a lot on her mind?" I thought. I couldn't believe the whispers, the pitiful looks I got from people who would suddenly stop talking when I entered the room. AND NOW THIS . . . this . . .this . . . (breaks down, turns away, then speaks with a faraway voice) I must be strong; it's better that I know; I'm glad it's in the open now.

Fut.Perf., if you'd check this guy out and see what he needs, I need to talk to Bish alone, please, if you don't mind. He continues to revert against talk page consensus. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Prof. N Wickramasinghe.jpg

Dear friend, Thanks lot for your suggestion. I tried but it is difficult and no answer . could you please help me to upload using other way. I have other images to upload. if you can show me a way, I can learn and follow.--Butterflylk (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic attention

Progonos was created by a user, who at the same time was deleting information and moving the titles of many Albanian-related bio articles. Is this plausible as a Greek name?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't come across it before, but that Progonos Sgouros guy certainly seems to exist, and if "Progonos" was a Byzantine Christian name, then of course "Progon" in the neighbouring languages under Byzantine/Orthodox influence would naturally be its reflection, like with so many other Christian names. The equivalence seems to be confirmed for some Albanian person here [149], for example. Don't really see what's so surprising about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, about Progon of Kruja: "... was the Albanian ruler of..." doesn't make much sense. It sounds as if the place had several rulers at the same time, one for the Albanians, one for the Elbonians, and so on. The logical error is that the sentence mixes together definitorial statements (what was he? a ruler. what was he the ruler of? of Kruja.) with additional characterizations (he happened to be Albanian). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an Albanian person, that's the reason the article Progonos Sgouros was started and the progonovici in Montenegro was an Albanian settlement. Are there any non-Albanian people with the name Progon or Progonos and was there a Byzantine name Progonos? That user was making very specific pointy edits on Albanian articles and calling some a fabrication so there may be an ulterior motive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, honestly. But the link I just happened to come across on Google [150] appears to be in fact about just that Progon of Kruja. I have no idea about the ethnicity of the Sgouros guy. He seems solidly Byzantine, from what I can gather. Why would his ethnicity matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Progon Sgouros is a transliteration for Progon Skura [151] . If he was a non-Albanian Byzantine, it would mean that it's not a name used by Albanians, but a Byzantine name that just happens to be used mostly by Albanians. Is there a directory with Byzantine names?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Try Encyclopaedic Prosopographical Lexicon of Byzantine History and Civilization. Or Prosopography of the Byzantine World? But in any case, Byzantine people, whatever their ethnic provenance, had Christian baptismal names first and foremost, and those were, almost by definition, primarily Greek and secondarily had vernacular equivalents (like Ioannis–Gjon etc.) What's so strange about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a Slavic word progon, there is an Albanian name Progon and there is Greek adjective progonos. So this name that is more or less used only by Albanian subjects, is of Slavic, Greek or of Albanian origin? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This source about the House of Sgouroi mention him as a Greek-Albanian... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, the intro of this source states that Sgouroi family come from Nauplion. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

3rr

Yes, I lost patience with LUCPOL, and yes, I lost count of my reverts. Truly sorry about that. Nationalists of any stripe get the best of me sometimes.

And yes, LUCPOL can be very trying. I just reported him for suspected meat-puppeteering on the very vote you just closed.

Again, sorry. Won't happen again Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and again, sorry to have bothered you. Glad you liked my username. Not very many people get it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 12:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian Bulgarians and Bulgarian Macedonians

Hi Future! An new registred User:Eddie1kanobi is making a strange edits on the first article an has created the second one, which is a pure hoax. What about his case of reverts and spam? Regards. Jingby (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Future. A sock from the User:Eddie1kanobi under the IP 212.13.86.194 is vandalizing a cople of articles at the moment. This way of acting is unacceptable. Jingby (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately I'm still barred from taking admin actions on Mac topics. Arbcom silliness. I'm afraid you'll have to contact some other admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree to disagree

Howdy. I partially disagree with your edit comment on this edit. In my opinion, technically speaking, there is a rationale there. It may be invalid, but I still think there is one there. I'm not going to revert you though, because I honestly don't care that much about the image. Hopefully we can agree to disagree. :) Rockfang (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for your note. Just to make clear where I stand, the rule demands there must be a rationale, i.e. an explanation why the image must be used. The text we had here was merely a statement of intent, i.e. stating that the uploader wished to use the image to illustrate the article, but not a word about why. A text that isn't a rationale doesn't magically become one just because one pastes it into a template that has "rationale" written above it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Albanians

How many components of the image were copyvio?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, at least two, possibly three or four. Unfortunately I don't remember all of the details, and the file was on Commons, where I don't have admin tools and can't look up the deleted file now. What I do remember is that all of the older collage versions that were used at earler stages appeared to have some of the same problems. For instance, in this version the Lekë Dukagjini is of unknown copyright status (it's most likely a mid-20th century or communist era work, not as old as some might think it is), and the Ismail Kadare photograph was a proven copyvio. Something similar was going on in the old commons:File:Famous albanians.png, which was deleted in 2009, and with commons:File:Albanians People.jpg (which I'm going to have deleted now; look at the redlinks in its source list.)

But in any case, before you set out to create a new one, you might want to check the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups, about ethnic infobox images in general. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at KuwarOnline's talk page.
Message added 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please delete files KuwarOnline ^Talk 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at KuwarOnline's talk page.
Message added 11:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Undelete Request for File:Korum Mall, Thane.jpg KuwarOnline ^Talk 11:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thorium image

Could you please explain clearly what's wrong with the thorium image? There are similar images from RSC at actinium and protactinium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at [[User talk:Files for deletion#File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg|Files for deletion's talk page]].
Message added 06:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Administrator warring

Hey I am not the one warring, he instigated it and I am reporting it before it gets out of hand. How is that not a logical argument? "because its formatted that way does not mean it can't be another way". All of the multi sporting event articles on wikipedia have it like that, and there is no point in changing that now. For example, on the Amazing Race pages, I was told by User:Ryulong there was only one way of formatting the "fast forwards" so in this situation I am right. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fringe images

Hey there. You recently disputed the non-free use rationales on about six non-free screenshots from the TV show Fringe that I had uploaded. I was just hoping you could clarify your point(s) of contention so that I could fix what needs fixing in order that these images be kept to illustrate important events from these episodes. Thanks much. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for coming back to me about this. The thing is, following WP:NFC and long-standing practice in deletion discussions, screenshot images can only be used where they are necessary to make the description of the work or some point of analytic commentary on an aspect of the work understood. In other words, the decisive factor is not so much that the scene in question is important in the context of the episode, but that some visual detail of the scene is important in the context of its analytical coverage in the article. In the cases I tagged, I just couldn't see that this was the case. So, if there's anything to be "fixed", it wouldn't be just the image description page; it would have to be the articles themselves, which would need to contain relevant analytical commentary on the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia‎

Hello. An anonymous editor started editing Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia about a week ago. I reverted his edits thinking he was just another POV warrior who would go away. Well, he hasn't so could you check the article and my talkpage out and help resolve this? Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version on one of the articles, but I have to admit I'm finding the situation less clear on the other and can't check all the sources so quickly. Please also keep in mind that if you need admin intervention you will need to ask somebody else. Best, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. --Local hero ^talk 21:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

174.117.97.72

I was reading over some articles on Ancient Macedonia, etc and saw this IP acting up and see that they are blocked at the moment. They have called Borza "fringe" and ran with the "list of scholars", both things that SQRT5P1D2 did as well. Thank you for your time.Gingervlad (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say I too was thinking of Sqrt for a while, but I think Sqrt was geographically located elsewhere. Not totally sure right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Wherever I Go.jpg

Hello. I am not entirely sure what your concern over File:Wherever I Go.jpg is. All TV episodes have a screenshot in the infobox. As far as I know, I tagged it with the correct licensing and non-free use rationale. 117Avenue (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a misunderstanding. Unfortunately a widespread one, and encouraged by the fact that the infobox templates offer a field for such an image. But TV episodes do not get a non-free image just as a matter of routine. Please see two threads above on this page, under #Fringe images, for an explanation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were just targeting this image, but now I see you have tagged the other ones too. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

MoD vs DoD

Please note that the MoD is not an Australian organisation. The Australian organisation is named the DoD.
c.f. Department of Defence (Australia); Ministry of Defence (disambiguation)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged images for Hannah Montana

If it is possible, are the images able to be put into the summary of the episode? Would that allow them to stay? --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if there is something in the text of the summary that would be substantially more difficult to understand without the support of the image. I didn't really see that there was anything like that, but you could prove me wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dede Santana

Please say again step by step, what I have to do to prevent my screenshot to be deleted. If you can help me, please help me by adding all that it needs, because that image is only a screencshot of a movie. If you can't please say me what I have to include or remove. See also File:Dinosantana.jpg and tell me if there's something wrong. Please hurry.Brazilian Man (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please read our policy on non-free content. Images that you haven't created yourself can be used only exceptionally, and only where they are absolutely necessary. In an article about the actor, where you just want to show what the actor looks like, you need a free image. There is no way you can use a screenshot for that. Screenshots can only be used if you are writing an article about the movie itself, and you have a discussion (based on reliable sources) about some visual feature of the movie that couldn't be understood without an image. For the things you are trying to do, I'm afraid there's just no way you can use these screenshots, sorry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok.Brazilian Man (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me if the screenshot File:Dinosantana.jpg will also be up to speed deletion.Brazilian Man (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid so. I've now tagged it accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)