User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 33

Andy Dingley

I noticed a warning to this guy to avoid sock-trolls, even on his own talk page. Amazingly, seconds after I clarified a word spelling on an Andy contribution, Andy reverted my spellcheck, and some user named "Denniss" duplicated the revert when Andy was queried on spelling. Then Andy comes right back with another revert, but seems to have distemper to go with it. Just wanted you to know, as it looked as though Andy has been warned over his editing behavior before :) Have a great day! Barada wha? 01:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you are telling me this, as your spat with Andy evidently had nothing to do with what I was criticizing him for the other day. In this case, the only thing I'm seeing is that you were edit-warring because of your own misunderstanding of English spelling. You were evidently acting on the naive belief that merely because you were personally not familiar with the "oe" spelling it must be "incorrect or archaic", when one minute of google-checking could easily have told you that it is indeed a common (or perhaps the common) spelling in British English. Andy was right in pointing you to our policy at WP:ENGVAR; the moment he did that you ought to at least have taken a step back and checked the facts or asked him, instead of stubbornly edit-warring up to 3R as you did. Your poor behaviour, not his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the moment of your time. I don't know what 3R means, but I'm guessing "3 reversions", when I believed to have only undone 2, after injecting the query of archaic language. By definition Wiki states: (why I insert this when you already know beats me): "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." I asked you because his tone was immediate, and when searching stacks I noticed something in your files with his name, nothing more. I must point out that there was never a negative tone or intent in my action, just misunderstanding as his spelling was reflected as a "nautical" use in the English version dictionary I consulted after a Google search (he did cite WP:ENGVER...), as I pointed out to him. I am assuming (I hate that word) that you also searched Google and found a similar usage, but not the one I did. I placed the appropriate conversation on Andy's talk page, but how a person reacts to explanations cannot be predicted from a keyboard, any more than yours could have. I must dispute any idea of "edit-warring", as there is a necessary intent to disrupt, and I never had one, simply to clarify. Thank you for your comments, and your good work as an admin! I can only imagine some of the questions you get! I'm a nurse, and you wouldn't believe what I hear, lol :) But I answer them knowing that I've done someone some good somehow, and I do it in a pleasant and positive way, because everyone deserves respect Barada wha? 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like you very much...

Special:Contributions/2A02:2B88:2:1:0:0:1F95:1. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

London Victory Celebrations of 1946

I happened to be reading Wikipedia:ARBEE#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions. Regarding the restriction on London Victory Celebrations of 1946 you had written, in October 2012, "Provisionally lifted to test the waters again, per proposal at AE.." Time has passed since 2012 and nothing bad has happened to the article. This made me wonder about the current status of the ban. Some people put strikeouts through obsolete bans, for clarity. I went ahead and put a strikeout through the restriction. Please revert if you disagree. The indefinite semiprotection remains in place. I'll also ping @Sandstein in case he wants to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) is back to proxing for a sockpuppet after you warned him, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=594090044&oldid=594089669 Andy obviously isnt getting the message. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Respond

My offer is not only abt photos, I ve created a lot of articles and completed others (for example recently Jews of Thessaloniki). Beside this, my offers is something i cant unferstand why should be your business. The consesus on Thessaloniki main photo was abt the collage, not abt the white tower. Focus on Deutsch articles which you know better and please dont be so sensitive on other articles. Greco22 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My old list article.

Hello Future Perfect, it has been a long time, I know we weren't on good terms with each other last year and I wish to change that. Last year I made an article titled List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive and you deleted it. I wish to revive it under a different name with your permission. I swear I will gather and cite reliable sources for this article I.E. books and not dubious websites.

Please give the article another chance. Regards. Kirby (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That was a pretty clear AfD result, which I am not entitled to overrule on my own personal whim now. If you want the page reinstated, you'd probably have to gain consensus for that in a formal deletion review. But what you can do, and actually should do before you attempt such a review, is to draft your new version in a userspace sandbox. Please make sure you have proper sourcing before you submit it for review; that way there will be no need for swearing oaths about going to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Would providing a copy of the deleted article in their user space to facilitate improvement be permitted? Werieth (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Info about Kingdom's geography on Alexander article

Hello dear fellow Wiki-User FutPerf! Thank you for your contributive edits on Alexander's page, which are balanced, realistic and well-reasoned. I however reverted the changes that include the term "Northern Ancient Greece" to describe the kingdom's location, as it is not a very valid term, although plausible. I made a comment where I am explaining the reasons behind my concerns for the use of this term and why it isn't fitting well in this case, at the Talk:Alexander_the_Great page. Thanks for any response! --SilentResident (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This Discussion

I don't know about this non-free image under discussion but the uploader's image is replacable with a different free image from 1964. I assume the discussion will continue, however. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN ping

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review requested: protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit to talk page

Thank you for experimenting with the page User talk:Nagle on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly. Please do not remove content from my talk page. This is a request to you with all the strength that policy permits me to make and it requires you to observe. I make this request for all accounts, no matter what the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John Nagle: (a) maybe I ought to have been clearer with an edit summary, but I thought you'd easily see the reason for my removal from the block message on the editor's account. It was an abusive posting by a serial block-evading sock and harassment troll, so I'd ask you to not reinstate it. At the same time, (b) you ought to know better than to leave {{test1}} messages here. Andy Dingley: you know perfectly well what the reason for removing this stuff from your page is. If you still don't like it, that's up to you, but please spare us the charade of playing dumb, it isn't making you look good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand there's some controversy here, but you should not be deleting items from the talk pages of others. You should not, especially, be doing it more than once. I'm not sure what's going on, but prefer to preserve the evidence of whatever it is. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, that's not how it works. When I see a serial ban-evading sock, I roll them back en-masse, as a matter of course. Of course that includes user talk pages. If you wish this material to be reinstated, please check out the rules at WP:BAN. It's not just about "preserving evidence", it is about making the posting fully your own: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". This means: if the posting contains a personal attack, the personal attack will be counted as having been made by you. If the posting is part of a pattern of harassment, you will be counted as the harasser. Do you really want to step in this troll's shoes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As you well know, yes. I think this editor has a point. I think that their claim of Betacommand having returned as Werieth has merit and should be examined. I may not support their methods, but I'm not going to ignore an observed edit or diff they offer just because of who is posting it.

Contrary to WP:BAN though you repeatedly threaten to block me for even discussing this editor. You are substantially an INVOLVED admin in the Betacommand / Werieth issue and this makes you a very problematic person to be acting quite so expediently around other editors. Three minutes to have them indeffed and access removed, all acting in your own isolation? That is far from good admin practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm not sure what's going on here, but it seems to be part of something bigger. So I asked for clarification on AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for recognizing certain disruptive edits for what they were, and taking a stance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbian elections

Hi, Future Perfect! Sorry for bothering, but there is a problem which maybe you can help to resolve. There is an user (ElectPartei) who change election results on articles about Serbian elections with his wrong, unsourced data. First he did it on Serbian parliamentary election, 2014, and now he's doing that on some other articles - look at his contributions [1]. I definitely don't want to see this escalating into an edit war, so I hope you'll be able to help to put an end to this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3

Hi. As you may have seen, there has been a request for Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3/Statement by 153.19.58.76 (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs) to be undeleted. There have also been comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3‎ edit warring (e.g. by Tóraí) proposing other reasons for the IP post. Considering also that the posted version is currently available in the talk page history, it's not clear (to me, and presumably others) that there's much to be gained by keeping the page deleted, although your reasons for deletion at the time are understandable. Therefore, have you considered undeleting it yourself, and if not do you think giving such consideration could be worthy? Thanks. PS I only turned up to have a nose around and a vote, but that'll now have to wait until I've more time! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 22:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can I just second the curiosity on why that subpage needs to remain deleted? Obviously you're the deleting sysop, but the necessity isn't clear to me. Pakaran 22:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. I see my name mentioned above but I came here to ask if you'd object to me restoring the subpage. If you don't want to restore it yourself, but don't object to me doing so, let me know. --Tóraí (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I would object to that. There was an edit-war about reinstating that troll post, and reinstating it now on a different page would in effect be nothing but a continuation of that edit war. I stand by my position that this is obviously a posting made in breach of WP:SOCK, and as such to be removed. I would consider allowing its restoration only if the author were to plausibly identify himself and demonstrate they are a legitimate, non-banned editor in good standing; failing that, the only rational assumption must be they are an illegitimate sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I would consider allowing its restoration only if the author were to plausibly identify himself... Sounds a bit like: Tell us who you're a sock of, otherwise we'll assume you're a sock! :-)

The issue is moot now anyway. And I've proposed the ANI thread be closed to prevent further rancor. --Tóraí (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The assertion may well be true. But there remains the possibility that it's not, and while this is the case, there's also the possibility that the person is not following this discussion. Therefore, I've dropped an additional note at User talk:153.19.58.76#Notice. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

I've asked you here (permalink) to explain how your actions in protecting Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Piotrus 3 after being a party to the edit war does not constitute using your admin tool while involved. Your statement here (permalink) that you had decided on a preferred version and reverted to that version before protecting actually seems to exactly describe WP:INVOLVED.

So, I'd appreciate an explanation of how your actions were not a breach of WP:INVOLVED or an acknowledgement that they were. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? Deleting total trollish crap is sanitation not WP:INVOLVED edit warring. This is why editors leave WP. This is an encyclopedia, not a free speech forum. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My question is to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and it is about the propriety of his protecting the page, not about his removal of the comment. He may well have been right to remove the comment (though I am not yet convinced of that). Many editors in good standing removed and added the comment (indicating this was a contentious, not obvious, case) - and only one of those protected the page in his preferred version: FPaS. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have said everything I had to say about this. I am not willing to further participate in that trollfest of hysterical malcontents and drama busybodies that that thread has become. Do not post here again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted that RFAR thread for now, as the ANI thread I thought was dead still has some life in it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What a pathetic waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have restored WP:RFAR#Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What a pathetic waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletions of: Drapeau de Haïti, Haitian patties

I would like an explanation as to why these were deleted in such a speedy fashion and how they violated the non-free rule after being adequately sourced. Thank you. SJ

Very simple: it was obviously replaceable. Anybody could take a photograph of a Haitian flag flying somewhere, or a plate of Haitian pastries, at any time, very easily. It has nothing to do with the sourcing; it's all about the criterion in WP:NFCC#1. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, understood Sir. =/ SJ

stigma and sho

Fut. Perf., first, thank you for this image! I recently translated it into Croatian. Second, another user and I have been updating Greek language templates on Croatian Wikipedia and I ran across this conversation. I agree with your reasoning there -- although I think there's merit to including heta under archaic Greek letters, as in {{Greek language}} and {{Greek alphabet}}, as it was an actual (variant of a) letter used by Greeks -- so I've cleaned up Croatian templates & articles of sources that treated stigma & sho as "other Greek letters" or whatever the weird formulation was. However, I've glanced at other Wikipedias and the two letters seem to be used in articles & templates on the Greek alphabet as though they're standard. Thought you may want to know. – Miranche ^T C 06:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciated. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Muntazir764

Hi. You removed the pictures its ok. But i Can not understand why you are removing text too. All text which you removed is true basis. Text which uploaded on artical Abdul Khaliq (athlete) by me is true. I am grandson of that particular person on whome the arical is written. you can get information from https://www.facebook.com/abdulkhaliqasianbird. I am admin of this page also. Please help me for Improving the aritcal on wikipedia.I need yours help. I am new user on wikipedia. i am trying to learn rule for editing. I will be highly thankful to you. {unsigned|Muntazir764}}

Thanks for asking. There are three things you need to understand here: first, even though you may have personal knowledge of this person, Wikipedia cannot rely on this personal knowledge. To make sure articles are correct, we require that they are based on independent published sources (see WP:Verifiability). Second, these sources must fulfill certain requirements to be considered reliable. Your own, self-managed facebook page is not such a source, while the newspaper article you also have been using probably is. Third – and very importantly – even though articles must be based on sources, they must nevertheless not be literally copied from them. Everything you write must be expressed in your own words. Copying text from a newspaper article, as you did, is a copyright violation and cannot be accepted here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So, its means I can write the same thing but in my own words? answer me on my talk. please. Thanks for your help. Looking forwarded better relations. one more thing is that when i write the text in my own words then how can I gave references?

The Holocaust in Poland

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You are the only administrator I know, bold enough to perform a surgery on a rotten limb poisoning the body. You do it, where others fail. Please take a look at what is going on at The Holocaust in Poland article including its talk page and editing history. I haven't seen so much conflict in a long time. Thanks in advance for your help, Poeticbent talk 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Edwin_E._Jacques

It appears that an old deleted article is back alive. Although almost 3 years passed, it might be useful to take a quick look at this, since you nominated it for deletion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of case being declined

Hello. An Arbitration Case Request that you were listed as being an involved party to titled Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here.--Rockfang (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mushfiqur Rahim/GA2

Would you like to comment there? —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just speedy-close the whole thing, if you ask me. It's really not worth sweating over, is it? Quite obvious the whole idea of nominating it was bogus from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Prek Cali

You have no right to delete real facts and too add propaganda facts! Prek Cali is Albanian hero,not chetnick coorporateor! Please restore Cali's biography. Because actual biography is UNREAL,because is based on serbian communist history and not in real one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs)

I honestly don't know, and hardly care, which parts of the biography were true or not. The reason I removed your additions was because they were unreadable. Unfortunately, your English is just too poor to make meaningful major text contributions here, just as it is too poor to engage in advanced dialogue with other editors over subtle issues of NPOV and proper sourcing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

All informations are based on real history (from his biography book of Dr.Luigj Martini, Prek Cali ,Kelmendi dhe Kelmendasit ,Prekë Cali, Piramida e kufijve të Shqipërisë - written by albanian publicyst leaving in Montenegro, Gjekë Gjonaj, Zef Pllumi "Live to tell" , Nikolla Spathari,Albanian historian, Ndue Bacaj -Albanian historian, Pjeter Ivezaj - Albanian historian from Montenegro, and Documentary made by Digitalb "Prekë Cali, piramida e kufijve" .Uran Butka -historian. This is the official biography of Prek Cali,the Albanian hero.AlbertBikaj (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not listening, are you? I don't care what the sources are. I care about Wikipedia articles being in proper English. The texts you wrote were so full of mistakes they were unreadable. If your English is too poor to contribute here, you ought maybe to go and work on a different project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I will try to correct it,but try to understand me,its not my first language. AlbertBikaj (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How should i write it ? tell me ? Or you just support serbian propaganda ? AlbertBikaj (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this IP's edit maybe related to the block of the account?

See[2]. I've blocked the IP for a week. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking again at their edits[3] they are obviously just aiming at you. Is a week appropriate? Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's User:Wikinger, and as usual an open proxy. I normally use one-year blocks on the proxies, and range blocks on any non-proxy range he turns up on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I need to know how to check for open proxies. Just as I notice frequently that a school IP hasn't been identified as a school, I may be missing that IPs are open proxies. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's been used for Wikinger-style abuse, just try entering the IP as a web address in your browser. If it answers as a webserver, it's certain to be an open proxy (never understood why so many webservers are misconfigured so as to be exploitable as open proxies, but apparently they are). If you look up the IP on whois and it turns out to be a normal residential DSL of a provider in Poland, then it's likely not to be a proxy, but the range ought to be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your protection of User:Romanski1996

Hi FPaS, when you protected User:Romanski1996 I think (judging by the page history) that you protected a version dispreferred by the user - the page was re-vandalised just before it was protected, and that should be fixed by somebody with the tools to revert it :-) --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh indeed, thanks for the heads-up. I see another admin fixed it in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

You have been involved in the topic area, hence your participation is necessary. Aren't edits like these liable to a block keeping in mind WP:ARBIPA sanctions and the intense NPOVN discussion over the lead of this article over which months were spent upon? I see these recent pointy edits as an attempt to reverse long-established debate over the issue. Please mediate. Mar4d (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Taliban#Content removal. Mar4d (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All I can see is you obviously both deserve a block for edit-warring, and probably a more long-term restriction as per the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, given both your histories, but I'm hardly going to be the one to impose it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Greek Macedonians

Instead of mindlessly vandalizing other peoples' contributions why don't you focus on a smaller, more coherently related group of topics and make your own contributions based on at least some reading of reputable scholarly sources. Wikipedia is not the place for people to play out their frustrations and insecurities A Gounaris (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

ARBEE/DIGWUREN

Future, does Georgia fall under WP:ARBEE? There's currently a situation centred around Tquarchal district, but spread across a number of articles (and commons incidentally but out of scope here), where apparently only the Georgian name "Tkvarcheli" is "correct", which I suppose means the Abkhaz "Tquarchal" is wrong somehow. CMD (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, they've figured out how to use move requests, and another user has posted more convincing arguments. CMD (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear. For the record, yes, I do think Georgia falls under ARBEE (it's in Europe, and the political/ideological disputes involved (ethnic conflicts in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union) are very much of a similar kind as those elsewhere in Eastern Europe, so it would be quite legitimate to wield the arb-hammer if it becomes necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi?

Can you please semi the three pages [4] to stop the stupidity? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-free file

Could you check if this image falls under 'fair use'? — Lfdder (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks — Lfdder (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg

I see you deleted File:Oscar Pistorius arrives at court first day of his trial.jpg on grounds "F7: Violates non-free use policy: commercial agency picture".

There are actually two pages sourced there and they appear to directly contradict each other. Non-free use policy says nothing about "commercial agency picture" but does say at WP:NFCI 8b that "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance" ,and moreover that "subject of commentary" was accepted by the community as not sine qua non was confirmed by you yourself on 27 August 2011 here. On the other hand F7 says "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately" ?

Can I ask you to clarify which is correct please? Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is actually no contradiction. The passage from NFCI 8b reminds us that one of the necessary conditions is "respect for commercial opportunity". Commercial agency pics are assumed to automatically fail on exactly this criterion. Because (at least as long as we are just using the image as a vehicle of illustration for something other than itself, rather than engaging in analytical commentary on the image as an object of our encyclopedic coverage in its own right) our use of it stands in direct competition with similar uses of it for which the agency charges other people money. So, as a result, for commercial agency pics "critical commentary" is a "sine qua non", as you say, because only the act of commenting on the image can create a case of "transformative use" (in the sense of US fair use law) strong enough to make a fair use claim against the company's commercial interests plausible. CSD#F7b is simply a shortcut implementing this standard deletion case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. I did rather think something of the sort might be the case (usually I upload 2D artwork so wasn'treally in familiar territory here). It happened I was editing at the Pistorius trial and based on what I had gleaned from NFCI thought it worth trying an upload. Can I suggest that NFCI is clarified on the issue. It's easy to come away with the impression that a 0.1 MP is a complete fix for "respect for commercial opportunity". I also had a go at uploading a pic of Reeva Steenkamp, but that got speedied in short order.

Thank you for your time and the clear explanation. Appreciated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would only add that with regard to the Reeva Steenkamp image I mentioned WP:NFCI 10 "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" doesn't make any mention of "respect for commercial opportunity", but presumably the same applies in the case of an agency picture. That should be clarified as well I think. After all content adding editors don't normally refer to guidance for speedy deletion when they seek guidance on copyright issues and the issues are far from straightforward. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

HELLO

Greetings,I wonder why do you punished me ,the sourced-content provider instead of the equally reverting editor?

Victorkkd: I looked into this a bit myself. A few points: (1) The other editor with whom you were edit-warring was indeed warned about his actions. (2) You were blocked not just because of this edit war, but because you were warned multiple times in the past about this sort of behavior, and seem to have ignored the warnings. (3) Just because someone has stated something that was published in a book doesn't necessarily mean that book is a reliable source. You can find some book somewhere that will support virtually any point of view. (4) I'm afraid your English language skills are not really up to the standards necessary to contribute to English Wikipedia. Until you become more fluent in English, and if you can get your block removed, you might consider contributing to the version of Wikipedia that's in your native language. But remember to back up your contributions with sources that are widely considered to be unbiased and reliable. SimpsonDG (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection level on Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, I recently requested the protection level of this template (in Wikipedia project space) to be lowered to the  Template editor protection level, which was declined by HJ Mitchell saying that I should make my request to you directly. He also said something about the request being high profile, which I don't understand as both requests were simple requests for links. Hopefully, he will be able to clarify what they meant by that. Both of the edit requests on the talk page (of which one of them was mine), have now been answered, but I would like to be able to tweak the wording a little. I think that Template editor is an appropriate protection level for this template. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for volunteering to help with maintaining the upload script. I wasn't really familiar with that new userright level, but I guess it makes sense to assume that if an editor can be trusted to code Luo templates they should be trusted to work with this thing too. Please let me know if you have any questions about how the code works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Offerman pic

I have tagged the article with a di-disputed tag, as I am perfectly entitled to do. Please do not remove that pbp 18:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Christenberry Fieldhouse picture

Hey Future Perfect, thanks for posting on my wall your concerns about the file I uploaded. As far as I know (I looked around), there's no free image of the building available, so I grabbed one from the athletics web site and uploaded as non-free use. The photos of the basketball floor on the page I had the file page link to are out of date (the university changed its name, and the floor is different now), so I went with a front-of-the-building shot. Can you help me understand what I'm doing wrong? Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. The thing about our rules for non-free content is, we consider a non-free image replaceable with a free one not just if such a free replacement is already available, but also if we merely know that one could be created. Since anybody could go and take a new free photo of that building at any time, we won't resort to a non-free one instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. But can the photo I uploaded still be used in the meantime in the article, until I can replace it with a photo I've either taken, or been granted permission to release? (My user page explains a bit of why I have this account in the first place). Thanks for the insight! GRUcrule (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid Wikipedia is rather strict about these non-free content rules, so we really can't have the non-free photo. (There's actually the idea that we use the strict prohibition of unnecessary non-free images as a kind of incentive for people to create new free ones that otherwise they wouldn't create.) But if you're connected to the university, it should really not be so difficult to grab a camera and take a shot, or get a friend to take one, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

D'oh. Duh. I realize now that my very question answered itself by reading your comment. Yeah, I should be able to get a photo somehow. Thanks for the advice and insight! GRUcrule (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for English pronunciation of Greek letters

An article that you have been involved in editing, English pronunciation of Greek letters, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. אפונה (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Rouvas

Hello Future I don't wish to edit war and would like some administrative help. I recently reverted the page Sakis Rouvas to my previous version which was fully sourced (pertaining to the lead) and completely summarized the artist, albeit may have needed some trimming and tweaking as the version by a new user had a lot of grammatical errors, wrong formatting, seemed to be adapted from foreign language conventions not from fluent english, and also strangely omitted sourced content, even non-contentious events. What's more is that the overall neutrality of the article did not change, it was just written more poorly. More importantly a lot of the writing in the article was manipulated in translation to convey a different message than what's in the sources. The user:Kww keeps doing full reverts, which also removed a lot of non-contentious edits I had made, ie formatting, updates. I tried to speak with him but he wasn't very cooperative, just calling it "absolutely terrible" and insulting my writing. I don't believe he has even read the article or sources as, also I gave many examples of featured articles that contain similar content he was complaining about, although it doesn't seem like he has any knowledge of the topic anyway. Now I see he has reverted again, and to make things worse, he has completely cut the lead, not just critical reception and superlatives, but actual events, history, genre and artistic descriptions, sourced awards and titles. It is completely unrepresentative of the artist now. He's literally omitted the last 15 years of the artist's career! and neutral information and only left a negative about the military controversy, now giving it extremely undue weight. Also there is inaccurate information about 2 albums regaining commercial success, when the rise was critical. I don't see how someone can make such edits without any background knowledge, this current version isn't even supported by the sources, it was very careless. I told him to tweak the phrasing he didn't like (as the previous lead was fully sourced) or tell me so I could do it but he just keeps making destructive edits. GreekStar12 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my last edit was not a revert: I just removed all the gushing from the lead that GreekStar12 keeps restoring. Not much of the lead was left after that. Hopefully some reasonably neutral editor will determine a neutral method of expressing any important material that I omitted in the process.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion regarding Providence (religious movement)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive833#Large amount of properly sourced content is being continually deleted from Providence Religious Movement Article. ... Since you previously responded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Macauthor is being a pain in the patuckus, I thought your consideration of the case would be of value. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Future. FYI, the IP 87.63.80.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:J-20 in flight with Russian AL-31.jpg

Hello Future Perfect following your recent deletion this morning of File:J-20 in flight with Russian AL-31.jpg it has been uploaded again (the fifth time in a few weeks) by the same uploader. Do you think we can just delete it again under the same F7 or does it need another process, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Thanks very much for protecting this article. As I recently said at WP:ANI, our coverage of the crisis is getting more and more mired. Look at the ridiculousness of Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country). RGloucester — ☎ 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LoveMonkey requesting unblock

Please see User talk:LoveMonkey#Unblock request. You're the blocking admin. I have been exchanging some mail with this editor. It's now six months since the block. It says in his proposal that he will accept 'content and subject blocks' which I think means bans from certain articles or topics. As yet I'm not sure if I will support, but a discussion could be worthwhile. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Seeing his editing history, and the particularly revealing rant that triggered my block of him (archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Disruptive editing behavior of User:Esoglou), I consider this contributor pretty much as the paradigm case of a POV-driven battleground editor. His promise ("I will not engage in battleground attitude, personal attacks, long-term tendentious editing") rings hollow, to me, as it seems to merely mechanically parrot the wording I put into my block rationale back then. Given the fundamentally POV-driven nature of what he used to do here before his block, I would want to see more than just a cheap promise to abstain from some of the superficial symptoms of tendentious editing – I want to see a sign that he is going to be here for entirely different reasons than those that made him want to be here earlier. And, frankly, I can't remember ever having met such a case. Call me cynical, but I have come to believe that while there are truly reformed former vandals and truly reformed former trolls, there really is no such thing as a truly reformed former POV warrior.

At the least, I would strongly recommend putting him on a tight topic ban from anything related to East/West (Orthodox/Catholic) theological and historical disputes. But that would exclude him from about 95% of what he's ever shown any interest in editing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske breached sanctions

I apologize if this is the incorrect place to report this. If not, could you please forward this to the appropriate place. I will also add this to User talk:Alex Bakharev and User talk:Lvivske.

Regarding these sanctions:

"Lvivske (talk · contribs)) . . . placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Lvivske breached the bolded part with this revert on Svoboda without any discussion. The edit summary made reference to a recent effort to reduce the criticism section (see talk page) which had already been closed and integrated into the article and where, at any rate, I specifically asked that "No significant content should be removed from the article entirely without due discussion." I will note that during the effort to close the criticism section User:Lvivske made disruptive edits without any discussion here and here that greatly increased the criticism section despite my requests for "collaboration and discussion" on the article talk page and at User talk:Lvivske#Restructuring Svoboda article. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I would first like to point out that the diff in question concerns me removing something from the article without discussing it first - there is an active talk section on this specific content, and another user suggested to remove it already and none opposed, I was just being proactive. Second, I added one sentence to the criticism section. One. I even self reverted to take in his content suggestion. "Significant content"? "greatly increased the section"? This is hyperbole to the nth degree. I'm the most active person on the talk page, too. This is headhunting. Stephen J Sharpe's userpage is now some sort of weird attack page about me now. Come on.--Львівське (говорити) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If my user page bothers you I'll change it. It was an appeal for help. The two additions to the criticism section combined for a total of 16 sentences and the removal of several others (of which there was no discussion either) - you overlooked the second link. The main concern is how you breached the requirement to discuss your proposed reverts and wait a minimum of six hours before making them despite my requests for discussion. This is also not the first time you have done so as detailed in Revision history of "Svoboda" (political party) where most of your reverts were not preceded by discussion. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was about the specific factual claim of a 'calling for a purge'. Lvivske decided on his own initiative, and without warning, to remove the entire passage of which no one had suggested. The statement referring to a purge had already been reverted by me and changed to a claim attributed to the source. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1 sentence, not 16. Let's stay honest here. I added 2 sentences and then self reverted it in to 1 sentence. --Львівське (говорити) 22:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here. This link was included in my first post. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also these two reverts here and here despite there being an ongoing conversation on the talk page. Also violates 1RR restriction. There's plenty more evidence from Lvivske's contribtution page that you can go through at your leisure. Clearly, Lvivske feels like he can ignore his sanctions without consequence. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Lvivske was warned on March 5 that the restrictions still apply here. Also I'm not "headhunting" - we've edited 3 or 4 of the same articles, all related to recent events in Ukraine, because we have similar interests. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Attic Greek

You may be interested to weigh in here. You probably know more about these things than me. — Lfdder (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
Message added —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2014; 17:26 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for semi-prot on Ukrainian/Crimean related topics

Please see my comments in the request here [5]. I can't believe that most of these pages haven't been semi-protected yet, given what's been going on on them in the past two weeks (I'd also would love it if every single account that has edited these pages in the past two weeks got checkusered, but that's not gonna happen). Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is wise. I support this. bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

User:Zvezda Soyuz continues to edit war on this article which is under probation. Notifying you as per the notice on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Continuing edit war? It is POV, object to it. I added a source. Zvezda Soyuz (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zvezda Soyuz: Actually, you've made a complete and utter hash of the opening sentence. I've reverted myself per WP:1RR and recommend you undo your edit if you do not want to be banned from editing the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted to the stable version. Please do not change again unless you gain consensus on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone you know?

See User talk:2A04:9DC0:0:10:0:0:0:0--talk page history and edit history. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just another Wikinger IP. Globally blocked. --Rschen7754 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: he's back -- User:83.29.95.68 — Lfdder (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Lfdder: Elockid blocked already and no doubt threw a range block that way and plugged up a bunch of TOR proxies, or whatever those things are, with mud and duck tape. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous126

All right, all right, I can see what could've happened, but maybe the page could be undeleted to userspace or subpage of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2014 (as in this fine example from last year)? I'd appreciate it Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Schematics of High Contrast Grating.png

Hi Future Perfect, is it possible to change the property of this file into "This is a free work"? I made this figure myself, and now I think it is fine to make it into a free work. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyang (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for asking, yes, sure, if you originally made this figure, then that is the way to go. Just put an appropriate license tag on the file description page (such as {{cc-by-sa}}). I'll take care of the rest if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You know what

Let's not start a war. Please.
Explain.
Easy.
I could say that the way it-they is-are now, it-they suck-s. Oops I did say it in a metaway... ;-)
My additions/edits aren't perfect, but they surely seem like an improvement...
If not, the onus is to you, to justify...
Please don't pass the ball onto me for something so obviously...
P.S. FYI But if we are to start-continue a war, the date/time I propose for the duel is this evening; I can't do gymnastics right now... :D
Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Ancient Greek accent. I appreciate you have a right to an explanation, but it would have been far more appropriate for you to at least wait until I give it before you re-revert on several pages at once, as you just did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, Can you remove the admin protection from my user pages. I will be trying to be active now on wikipedia again. Thanks for the protection though - at least my pages were not in shambles after i came back.  A m i t  웃   16:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I didn't even remember I had put a full protection on, which is rather uncommon; must have been a mistake on my part. I've changed it to semiprotection for now, or do you prefer none at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - semi would be good now i suppose, my page usually gets vandalized often due to my anti vandal reverts.  A m i t  웃   17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pitch accent may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous126

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous126. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Serious request. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions appeal

I'm appealing the sanctions from 2 years ago. I've made my case here, just letting you know. Thanks & have mercy on my soul. --Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, if you've got some time an opinion from you would be very helpful (see my comment at the bottom of the univolved admins section. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI

This is not me or by me!!! Realised its existence, seen it only, just, now; do whatever you want with/to it...
PS I haven't forgotten you. I had written a long reply which I have saved, I just was very tired, etc., to continue at the time the dispute/fight/talk. I'll probably add it and continue in due time...
Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I knew it wasn't you. Just some deranged person who's been after me with this kind of nonsense for years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know...

You left something out here. I did something about it, but you should probably fix that yourself. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Image

Hi, the image is promotional put out by the company and is about the article, therefore, can be used. It is not easily replaced. IQ125 (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about File:SC76 Thunderbolt Rifle.jpg. The promotional status doesn't help us here, as it still fails WP:NFCC#1, replaceability. It may not be "easily" replaced, as you say (I, for one, couldn't make a photo of this gun, as it wouldn't be legal for me to own one in my country), but there are clearly some people out there who have access to one of these guns and could make a photo of them if they wanted to. That's all that's needed to make it count as "replaceable" under our rules.

In terms of proper process, I must also ask you to not unilaterally remove deletion tags from files. Please wait until another admin comes along to process it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you create a discussion, so we can build a consensus. I will abide the consensus. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but speaking as someone who has seen and processed thousands of deletion cases, including dozens relating to similar photos of weapons, there really isn't anything to discuss. It's a completely open-and-shut case. I won't be processing the deletion myself in this situation, but you can be certain the image will be be deleted in a few days, once some other admin comes along. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please help.

See here; you might also want to check (if you haven't already done so) the whole prior history of it.
But the former would probably suffice; in fact reading only the last few comments of the talk-section would probably do the job.
Please help, cause
either I'm already, indeed crazy,
therefore I should be institutionalised,
or they're going to make one hell of a crazy person out of me,
therefore I should get ready for institutionalisation... :)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeating the above request... Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SPI action

Regarding this, I noticed you blocked the IP but apparently not Reece Leonard. Amy particular reason for this? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If he is editing Lady Gaga related articles as an IP it is a violation of his topic ban.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of how the ban was violated, but what I'm not sure is how come Reece's main account didn't get blocked at first when the IP got blocked. Mr. Stradivarius has blocked the account, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I quite agree with that, obviously. I guess I just wanted to see first how Reece would react or something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, taking a look at Reece's user page he lists himself as part of the Lady Gaga WikiProject even after he got topic banned. When I tried to explain how he couldn't be part of the project while banned from the topic, he's all "excuse me? yes I can". Perhaps admins such as yourself or Mr. Stradivarius could more convincingly explain this to him. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Quack quack. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quack! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.jpg

I've declined the speedy replaceable non-free because the uploader makes an argument that, in my opinion, minimally warrants discussion. If you want to pursue further, I would suggest WP:FFD as the file is only used on one page. You could also take it to WP:NFCR, but often single use images are better to be at FFD. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Loudly quacking sock needing attention

Finnedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked indefinitely yesterday for long-term tendentious editing, seems to be back. Compare this edit repeatedly made by Finnedi to this edit just made, as their very first edit, by new user Finnhaithen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 18:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Acroterion. Thomas.W ^talk 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

An editor has asked for a Move review of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Moscow Connection (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol

There is a very old RM that I started open at Political status of Crimea and Sevastopol that I think could use closing. By my view, there is vague support for the move, but obviously I'm not a neutral party that can decide such. Would you care to close it? RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a strange article, don't you think? It really needs merging into Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (can't see that there are any legitimate parts of its content that aren't duplicated there), and/or heavy cleanup. Very odd OR parts, as far as I can see. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and we know why this mess originated. It was recreated in the aftermath of the Republic of Crimea (country) fiasco, and then merged with International recognition of the Republic of Crimea, to avoid using what was the protected Political status of Crimea. I have no idea what to do with it, really. It hasn't seen much editing, either. RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New Finnedi-sock...

It didn't take Finnedi long to start again, this time as NuuttisSon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same name as Nuutinpoika but with the Finnish word "poika" changed to the Swedish equivalent "son", with the same meaning as "son" in English). Thomas.W ^talk 16:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done by Bishonen, who also blocked his IP for 6 months. Thomas.W ^talk 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm sorry for doing this. I am not trying to attack you but I feel like I am going to be blocked if I continue to edit related articles. I've seen editors express very strong anti-Russian opinions, but they haven't been warned. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this has just become the common Wikipedia culture nowadays. If you express an opinion, you'll be threatened. If you make an edit to an article, you'll be threatened. If you participate in a discussion in any way, you'll be threatened. Anyone doing any work on Wikipedia at all nowadays is going to be threatened with a ban or block, and admins are the worst offenders. It's a shame people can't be more polite here. SimpsonDG (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Jeans Taj Mahal

That image File:Jeans taj mahal.jpg, I found it over here, and I hence believe it is a free file. But how do I let it stay? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a free licensing statement there, do you? Facebook images are not automatically free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So is it like I just contact the owner of the image, ask him to mail permission to commons, and upload the image showing his permission? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that would work, if they are willing to do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Rationale

Explain to me what you're asking for on those images (specifically) so I don't have to keep this back and forth up. Simply addressing the issue would've have culminated in a swift fix. Reece Leonard (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I told you earlier [6]. Just think about what the word "rationale" means. You need to explain why exactly you think this particular image is needed for adequately understanding this particular article. There is no way you can do that with identical boilerplate text for every image; it has to be individual, concrete and specific. But I'd advise you to not bother: most of the images you uploaded are simply unjustifiable. Even if you try to add a rationale, they will be deleted via WP:FFD; it will just be more hassle for everyone involved. You might just try to pick the one or two that you think are really the most important, try writing a proper explanation for those, and let the others go. From the experience of having seen hundreds or thousands of TV episode images deleted over the last years, I can tell you that the large majority of your images, possibly all, simply do not come anywhere near the threshold of what would be debatable under WP:NFCC#8; they do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept in the long run. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a user in a similar situation to yourself brought up several images for discussion and they were all decided upon to be kept by other administrators, so I would be so quick to disparage any kind of response from myself. You did not spell the above information out before, specifically the information pertaining to the "individual, concrete and specific" information that you want listed on every single image page, but thank you for doing so. I can certainly add that to every image's page, and I will certainly contest to the vitality of each image individually if you wish. I have a legitimate question; what is the point of having the screenshot rationale in place if you're going into discussions on said screenshots with the mindset that "all" of these won't be acceptable? The idea that no image could ever live up to a specific guideline suggests that this guideline is being adhered to in the strictest form of interpretation, and violates one of the pillars of Wikipedia: Ignore all rules, which is in place to avoid this kind of nit-picking that ultimately leaves the entire encyclopedia without images for television episodes. Reece Leonard (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about no TV espisode ever being able to have an image? There are, indeed, some (few) cases where a specific scene, a specific visual effect, a specific aesthetic choice in filming something in a TV programme is so striking and important that the analytic discussion of that scene would be hard to get across without visual support. I'm just not seeing any such situation anywhere in this specific batch. It's quite rare in sitcoms anyway – most sitcom situations are visually such simple everyday scenes that there is very little in their visual content that would warrant ilustration. TV episodes with valid screenshot illustrations are very much the exception, not the rule. You still seem to come to the whole thing with the expectation that every episode should have one as a matter of routine; that is very definitely not the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone to carefully calculated lengths to make sure that each uploaded image either captures the spirit of the episode at hand, sums up the plot in a snapshot, or connotes a specific, isolated instance of some style of shot/joke/etc. that is characteristic or definitive of the series. The recent image that you deleted for "Believe in the Stars" is one of the main character obsessively staring at Oprah after being seated next to her on a plane. This is indicative of the main character's series-spanning reverence for this woman, as well as a summation of the plot; a vast majority of the episode either takes place on this airplane between the two of them or is vastly effected by the this situation. The image provides a visual representation of the episode summed up in a simple snapshot that allows the casual viewer to get a general grasp of what the episode is about; it is vital to the understanding of those readers who do not intend to read the entire page. This certainly satisfies WP:NFCC#8, even under your strict and supremely literal interpretation. Now, you claim that there is an issue with having an image per episode; what is this issue? If I'm able to adequately convey the general essence of the episode at hand or provide a deeper insight into the general infamy of a certain style of joke/recurring gag that the series has been defined by and have taken the time to acquire images that adhere to the screenshot rationale, why is there an issue with having an image for every episode? If they adhere to WP:NFCC#8 and there is no free alternative, they're allowed to be featured in the encyclopedia, correct? The act of having an image for every episode was certainly a practice until recent years when they all began to disappear. I'm genuinely curious what the argument is against having these images that prompted this overhaul, even if they satisfy WP:NFCC#8? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

They don't satisfy NFCC#8, that's the whole point. Your idea to have NFCC#8 evaluated against the needs of readers who don't even "intend to read the page" is certainly novel, but it doesn't work that way. We don't use non-free images for the benefit of people who don't read our articles. The criterion is that when you read the article your adequate understanding of the text must depend on the image. A reader who is prepared to read the article doesn't need an image to "convey the general essence" of the episode to them; that's what reading the intro is for.

As for the image in Belive in the Stars, it's a simple procedural point: it was deleted (by somebody else) after a valid WP:FFD process. You don't get to simply ignore a consensus process and repeatedly re-upload the same image in defiance of it; this is where WP:CSD#G4 kicks in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

See, I had no knowledge of this WP:FFD case because I was not notified. If I had known that it had been through due process, I would've let it be. My point about it working for those not intending to read the ENTIRE page certainly makes sense because the casual reader isn't going to read the entirety of a page; they'll skim, and the image provides a vital piece to their complete understanding. However, that was a side point to my main reasoning behind including these images. The intro section isn't successful, or even really able, to convey the essence or tone of an episode of television. That is a vital piece of information that really can't be put into words. Furthermore, multiple of these images provide a deeper insight into the general infamy of a certain style of joke/recurring gag that the series has been defined by. This certainly qualifies as adhering to to WP:NFCC#8 as it contributes to a more complete understanding of the episode at hand and this understanding would be diminished if it wasn't included. If we were to simply adhere to the standard that "an image cannot be included unless there's no way to put a description of this image into words" it would leave this encyclopedia entirely void of non-free images, which are extremely common. It would simply boil down to whatever images certain users WANTED to include based on personal preference and not based on the ideals of betterment and progression towards a more complete encyclopedia. Again; even if your interpretation of this guideline was set in stone, an adherence one of the main pillars of wikipedia would be best here, lest we end up with a cite with no images because their descriptions can be put into words. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RGloucester — ☎ 23:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kartik Tiwari

In relation to your comment in my talk page , I couldn't understand what you were saying. I will try to follow the rules. I believe the resolution is lower than the original image--Championkiller (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really: we never use non-free photographs to illustrate articles about living people, because it would always be possible for somebody to create a new, alternative photograph of that person and release it under a free license, so we wait until somebody does that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the Wiki page Kartik Tiwari needs a picture. As it's the page of a movie actor. So I wanted to submit picture. But all these rules are difficult. If you can submit picture in a proper way it would be good. Because it will take a long time for me to learn .Here is a complete list of pics[7]--Championkiller (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course it would be nice if we had a picture of him in the article. But, according to our rules, it just has to be one whose author has released it under an explicit, fully free license. You could try contacting the author of one of those pictures and asking them if they would be willing to license it accordingly, but other than that, there is really little else either you or I could do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should a separate article on the dried flowers and leaves variant of the Cannabis plant be made?

Talk:Cannabis (drug)#RFC: Should the section about the dried whole-flower-and-leaf preparation have its own article? If you have the time, would you please analyse my request, as you have a great grasp of English. Do you think there should be a separate section for this topic? მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:ArmijaDonetsk

Hi Fut.Perf., the new discretionary sanctions procedures require that when issuing sanctions you inform the sanctioned user of the appeals process I've done this for ArmijaDonetsk. In the future I suggest you use Template:AE sanction which is designed to meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS and give the sanctioned user enough information about what being sanctioned actually means. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hello Future Perfect, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

About the necessity for the linkages in Comfort women

I have written my opinion about the necessity for the linkages at Talk:Comfort women#About the necessity for the linkages. So please read them and let me know your opinion.NiceDay (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Need assistance

Need immediate assistance with repeated WP:CUTPASTE moves at Luhansk People's Republic. Please assist in some manner… RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, dearly. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Another dispute

Because you are editing articles in this area, you may be interested in the removal of text in this edit. Rape in Kashmir

DS blanked without edit commentary my talkpage comment which drew attention to section blanking in the article by DS. (He accused me then that I was a sockpuppet of the editor with whom he was edit-warring in that article, instead of discussing with me on the talkpage, and opened a SPI. There seems to be a history of edit warring (including DS) and alleged sockpuppetry in the article, but he cannot accuse everyone of being part of it.).

(see also Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_56#User:Darkness_Shines_deletion_of_talkpage_content_.28Rape_by_.22militants.22_in_Kashmir.29

I have chosen to not edit there because of time and because my edits got reverted so often by DS. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Rarevogel

Thanks for your edit there. No response and he's been editing since your post. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

He's ignored that. He's also ignored my comment on his talk page about his edit to Egypt (Roman province) and restored his edit, broken template, bad source, useless citation and all. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic

I understand that lots of "opinions" kept this page from developing, but it should not be handicapped, as a page, because of a few. As the subject of a lot of media articles for many notable events, it should be open to editors, and not left as a redirect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Content discussions should happen on content pages. I've responded to you at 2014 insurgency in Luhansk. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page move needs to be corrected

Thank you for undoing Omar Choudhry's page move of Subhan Allah. Unfortunatly, you made a small error in doing so: you moved the page to Subhan'Allahr (with an unnecessary "r" at the end). I tried to correct it, but am unable to do so. It would be greatly appreciated if you could make the correction. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me understand the situation?

If article Anti-Muslim violence in India was nominated for deletion on June 7 2013, the result of the discussion was delete. Then why do we have it around? IMHO, it is a collection of other articles and has considerable WP:EDITORIALIZING. Jyoti (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(watching:) the talk page is wrong, the result of the discussion was a deletion review, the article has a different name now. - I don't know more, but perhaps it helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion was an earlier version of the article, under the title Anti-Muslim pogroms in India. The deletion was confirmed in a deletion review. The same editor then created a new version on the same topic a few days later, under the present title. The new version was just sufficiently different that it didn't fall under the speedy deletion criterion of WP:CSD#G4, so it survived. Since there were still a lot of parts shared between the two versions, I just restored the deleted old revisions and moved them into the history of the present article, so it can now be read as if it was the history of a single page. All the edits in the history from before 24 June 2013 are the old article. You can compare them to see how the article changed after that deletion. I agree some of the article may still be somewhat problematic in tone and quality and selection of sourcing, but it's certainly a lot better now than last year. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

In response to this AE request you are hereby warned that further misconduct such as edit warring (as you did Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War) may result in sanctions which may include revert restrictions or bans from editing pages or specific topics under the discretionary sanctions authorised in the India-Pakistan case. Given that there were comments regarding the expectations of administrators you are also reminded that, per the administrator policy, administrators are expected to "lead by example" and "follow Wikipedia policies". This warning will be logged in the enforcement log of the India-Pakistan case and may be referred in the future if misconduct is reported. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I note your opinion but I reject it. It is a widespread but nevertheless stupid myth of Wikipedian dogmatism to think that reverting is always bad and forbidden. Such a rule would make sense if dispute resolution processes otherwise worked, but with certain types of hardened, persistent disruptive editors, like the one I was dealing with here, they just don't, and therefore a certain amount of reverting is unfortunately unavoidable. Enforcing the edit-warring policy in this way would be dogmatic, unrealistic and not in the interest of the project. I therefore reject the notion that I was engaging in any form of misconduct, and I vow that I will continue to do what has to be done, should this type of situation arise again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethical dative and "archaic" kathareuousa

You have reverted my text changes on the Varieties of Modern Greek with a note "Katharevousa was a conscious *return* to older forms, not just a *preservation* of such forms. And your use of "ethical dative" is completely wrong.".

Clearly most forms of the dative in mainstream Greek dialects are substituted by the accusative. Only in the single example of the use of σου vs σε, as in the specific example given in the article, is there a differentiation between regional dialects. If there is any dispute on this point, perhaps there should be a clarification. I may be wrong calling it ethical dative, please correct me with a more accurate term, but it is certainly only in this form (μου φαίνεται, etc) that the dative has been replaced by the genitive. In all other cases from the list on the dative there is replacement by the accusative.

Perhaps you can propose a better definition of Kathareuousa than it being a conservative form. It is certainly not archaic or archaizing. I did not call it preservation, just conservative. Perhaps you can explain what you mean with a conscious return to older forms - perhaps that would clarify the issue. There was no other standard written form at that time. Anything close to a contemporary standard (Ερμἠς ο Λὀγιος, οι συγγραφείς του ελληνικοὐ διαφωτισμού, Church/related literature and other technical writing, e.g. school textbooks) prior to Independence used a similar conservative style.

I had no responses to the contrary in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamnelis (talk • contribs)

About the dative thing, I really don't understand what you are getting so hung up about still. You yourself cited that blog post by Babiniotis somewhere the other day, where he explains the thing reasonably well. It's not just "se" vs. "sou", it's the whole system of indirect object marking (including things like "Της μητέρας μου της άρεσε πολύ", "σιγά μην του έδωσε του γιου του και το Tοyota" etc. That's where the merger of the dative into the genitive has happened, and that's where today the dialects differ. About Katharevousa, please do read the literature (I find Horrocks quite readable, and you can get it in Greek too: Ελληνικά: ιστορία της γλώσσας και των ομιλητών της. Chapter 17 deals with the emergence of Katharevousa. The literature is quite explicit about this: Katharevousa was not just a direct continuation of the existing written registers of around 1800, even though in hindsight they might look similar to the untrained modern eye today. The Katharevousa movement of the mid-19th century considered those existing written registers unsatisfactory and was consciously attempting to go further back, bringing them significantly closer to ancient Attic. That's what "purifying" meant to its proponents, hence the name. That's why it would be wrong to call it simply "conservative". Conservative means "conserving" something in the state you find it in. The Katharevousists felt they were being progressive, renewing the language by consciously changing it back to an ancient form that had been long out of use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you seem to have technially misunderstood something about signing your contributions: signing things with "~~~~" is what you are supposed to do on talk pages, like here, not when editing articles. And you do it right here in the page text, just after your contribution, not in the separate edit summary field. Writing ~~~~ into that edit summary box has no effect at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I forgot to sign and thanks for the clarification. That was not at all my understanding of Kathareuousa. I guess we cannot both be right or we are going by different definitions. My understanding of Kathareuousa is that it was a practical formalisation of the mainstream Greek used by literate Greeks (literate Phanariotes, expatriates, priests) up to Independence, in contradistinction to regional dialects, etc. Your understanding seems to be different. I do not know if someone defined it to his liking and wonder whether that matters. In any case, whatever Kathareuousa was by those who defined it best, should there not be an acknowledgement that stylistically the type of Greek used in writing prior to Independence was conservative? Two thousand years of written Greek are called "artificially archaic": "Ever since the times of Koiné Greek in Hellenistic and Roman antiquity, there was a competition between the naturally evolving spoken forms of Greek on the one hand, and the use of artificially archaic, learned registers on the other". Horrocks uses both terms conservative and archaizing to describe the written forms but cautions against the polemic as an anachronistic projection of a modern debate to previous periods.

The new examples you gave are the sort I had imagined following your response but I doubt they are being more commonly used than ἀρεσε στη μητέρα, ἐδωσε στο γυιό του. They are difficult in the present tense, better suited to the aorist and in relation to the article on variations do not differ between "north" and "south". Babiniotis stated that the dative has been replaced by the genitive but then all his examples had replacement by the accusative. All the forms on the article of the dative (except the ethical) use the accusative today in mainstream dialects - "τῷ βασιλεῖ μάχομαι", "πᾶς ἀνὴρ αὑτῷ πονεῖ", "ἄλλοις μὲν γὰρ χρήματά ἐστι πολλὰ καὶ ἵπποι", etc - also: ἐν Ἀθήναις, ἐν ὀλίγοις, ἐλἐῳ Θεοῦ, etc.Skamnelis (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

About "στη μητέρα" etc.: that's not replacement of the dative "with the accusative"; it's replacement of the dative with a prepositional construction (which then, incidentally, contains an accusative). But that's irrelevant here, because there is no dialectal difference in that respect. It also doesn't matter whether the genitive forms or the prepositional forms are used more often. As for "competition" etc.: I'm not saying that two thousand years of written Greek were all "artificially archaic", but that artificially archaic registers always formed one of the extreme poles in the range of registers common at any given point in time. And as such, they were in competition – often competition that speakers and writers were acutely aware of – with other varieties, including more middle-ground ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear then to have written some of these articles I have recently commented on. I saw you have accommodated some of my earlier comments, thanks. The distinction between replacement with the accusative and replacement with a preposition that uses the accusative is a fine one, but perhaps whatever seems appropriate could be noted at some point in the article on the Greek language, compare e.g. with the modern rendering of Phrantzes in http://ebooks.edu.gr/modules/ebook/show.php/DSGL-A111/262/1913,6328/ - nowhere is a genitive replacing the dative. I guess I misunderstood your statement I quoted above yesterday as more general than intended. Skamnelis (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Hi FPaS. Please don't add to archived cases as you did here as it will likely break our archiving script if another case comes along. There is a way in the standard method of filing cases where an admin can submit evidence as a closed case by filling in the |admincomment= parameter. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo merge

Khm, you've just duplicated History section with this edit [8]. I don't want to interfere for fear of an edit conflict, if you're still at the article. No such user (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that, no idea how I did that. Thanks for fixing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Stalker

Sometimes, I think that having a stalker is a bit like a badge of honour; if you put in enough effort on controversial topics, sooner or later an angry person on the internet will do something like this. I don't know what you did that triggered this particular stalker, but I'm sure you did a good job. bobrayner (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, that particular stalker isn't even reacting to anything heroic I did on anything controversial, beyond having had a hand in banning him. He's just a miserable little sociopathic nutjob, is all, and he's been a pest for several years now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about photo

I would like to use this photo in Ann Hunt and Elizabeth Hamel. Unfortunately, it is CC BY-NC-SA. However, does this copyright license allow me to make a reasonable case for fair use? Because it is NC, there is no commercial value in it. The article is, in part, about their reunion and there are no known free photos (this is as close to free as it gets) and it is not possible take a photo of a past event. What do you think? I am One of Many (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right insofar as the CC-NC license removes the WP:NFCC#2 obstacle regarding commercial value. However, there is still the issue of WP:NFCC#1, replaceability – since the sisters are still alive, you would have to make a case why it would be impossible to create a new, alternative image. As for the possibility you are hinting at, of arguing that the image serves not so much as a mere portrait but as a documentation of the unique occasion of their meeting, that would run into the problem of WP:NFCC#8 – in order to understand that they met, we don't need visual support showing us what they were wearing that particular day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I do think a good case can be made for WP:NFCC#8. They are notable as twins, for the duration of their separation, for their participation in twin research, and most importantly, for holding the guinness world record. The photo in question, intersects all of these. In addition, they are thought to be fraternal twins and the photo provides this information. Finally, the photo allows us to identify them as twins. There are of course other photos, but none free.

Another consideration, which I cannot find any prior discussion on, is the is CC BY-NC-SA license and how it might bear on the interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. There is a subjective aspect to WP:NFCC#8. People can disagree about how significant an image is to understanding in an article. In the case of a CC BY-NC-SA photo, the only thing that prevents it from being totally free is the non-commercial use restriction. As long as we don't use such a photo commercially, we are in copyright compliance. I realize that Wikipedia places a higher standard than this on fair use, but I do think it reasonable in the case of CC BY-NC-SA images to interpret WP:NFCC#8 more leniently because their is no legal issue of copyright noncompliance with CC BY-NC-SA images.

I think my first point is pretty strong in this particular case and stands on its own. They second point about the copyright context of interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 probably should be discussed by the community, unless it already has and I haven't been able to find the discussion. What do you think? I am One of Many (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About NFCC#8: yes, a photo of the twins would certainly pass NFCC#8, as such, in the interest of showing what they look like. What doesn't pass NFCC#8 is the demand of having this and only this specific photo, rather than some hypothetical other photo showing them that could still be created. There is nothing specific to this particular shot that gives us any unique information about them that some other picture couldn't. So, we are back at the NFCC#1 failure, replaceability, and you won't get past that as long as they are alive.

As for the "NC" thing, no, it has no bearing on the treatment of NFCC#8 whatsoever. NFCC#8 is purely about the functions an image has for us; it is quite orthogonal to any consideration of copyright status and the interests of the copyright owner. The place to consider those is NFCC#2. NFCC#8 and NFCC#2 are independent necessary conditions. An image has to separately pass both of them. If it fails either one, it is out, no matter how easily it has passed the other. You don't get a discount on the one criterion just because the other is favourable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So, the real intent of WP:NFCCP is two fold: (1) to prevent copyright violations and (2) to enforce Wikipedia's policy to create new free content whenever possible. All this time I had been interpreting WP:NFCCP as an attempt to stay miles away from any possible copyright violations. If that is the proper interpretation, then WP:NFCCP makes sense now.

Do you think it is possible to justify a fair use picture of (a) living person(s)? There are two photos that might meet WP:NFCCP because they were taken in the context of the research that was uniquely conducted on that day. this and this. If either is justifiable under WP:NFCCP let me know. And thanks for discussing these with me. I am One of Many (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Alerting of DS

Hello FP. If you use {{subst:alert | b}} to give DS notices then you don't have to log in the ARBMAC case. This is a timesaver. If the alert is properly given then it triggers edit filter 602. See this entry for an example. The list of topic codes is shown at the bottom of Template:Ds/alert. You can verify that ThisIsaTest was notified by doing this tag search. It appears that Arbcom wants this to be the sole notification scheme. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

FP, please revert your comment to the arbs at WT:AE. You are losing your equanimity. The AC has been getting beat up for a year over the warning system. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, if they really wanted this to be handled in this way, then they still deserve a lot more beating up and for a long time to come. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)s

Pings

Curious: If I ping "Fut. Perf.", which rd's here (as I did a couple hours ago), are you notified? Or do I have to ping your full user name? — kwami (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think the ping system is that clever. I did see your posting though; in general I keep an eye on noticeboard threads I've been posting to for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)

RHaworth has reverted his G4, but I think your SNOW was appropriate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination). Can you please restore your SNOW delete and userfy the article with full history and its talk with full history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have reinstated my closure. But I'm not sure what you would want a userfied copy for. The consensus in the two AfDs together was clearly against a re-creation of any article on this topic, so re-working it in order to try to re-instate a new version yet another time would clearly not be legitimate now, and per WP:UP#COPIES userspace pages are not to be used to indefinitely "host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content" if there's no concrete prospect of turning them back into mainspace. If you just want a record of your work, why didn't you simply store a private copy of the source text off-wiki? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Two admins have G4ed this article and reverted their G4s. So there must not be consensus against recreation. Look at the article talk for the first G4 reversal and see the second CSDing admin's talk page for the second. I would like to take a look at some specifics regarding the fork versus the main. Also, I did not store anything because I thought the AFD would get thrown out due to the obvious CANVASSing. As a side note, I have recreated 12 formerly deleted articles that are now at WP:GA. One of them ("Cat Daddy") was deleted 4 times.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You know you're just digging yourself deeper with these bogus canvassing accusations, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the answer is No, I won't restore this for you. There in fact is a very clear consensus against future recreations, your argument about the prior restorations signifying lack of such consensus is absurd wikilawyering in its worst form, the article has been salted, and I am not going to enable you to try yet another end-run around it. That you have the gall to still go on about those accusations of "canvassing" is another reason I have no interest in assisting you further. I warned you about continuing those accusations yesterday, did you see that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You asked me why and I told you. Did you want me to tell you a lie. Look at the IPs yourself. How many people even read the article before voting. To me CANVASSing seemed obvious. Why would two admins revert G4s other than the realization that the article was not a bad faith recreation? P.S. note my reason for requesting userfication (at the CSD admins page) was "I want to check a few specifics out" and stated above "look at some specifics regarding the fork versus the main." Can't you userfy and set up a wall/protection/block that keeps it from going back to mainspace without your consent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• I continue to need to check the contents of the deleted version of the fork to compare it current main article and to clarify inquiries that I may want to make on various policy and guideline talk pages. These efforts are part of ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia and to become a better editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said, I am not interested in assisting you further with this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Notifying you since Tony didn't. The thread is not about you but you are mentioned. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

IP vandal

Greetings. I noticed you just blocked an IP and an SPA for trolling Darkness Shines' talk page. this user just popped up today, and appears to be a sock of the same master; they are engaging in vandalism, and making PAs against Darkness Shines here. This also indicates that they are a sock. I decided to come here instead of AIV, because you've encountered this character before, and because it is more than simply a single vandalism only account; it's a string of accounts, masking their trolling with a handful of legitimate edits. If you could block, I'd be grateful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the heads-up, blocked. No idea what sockmaster this is though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, they were getting remarkably annoying. I would guess the sockmaster is ZORDANLIGHTER, who was blocked first for socking (a case in which DS was involved) and later topic banned per an AE decision, where DS had reported him. I believe he may have later been banned indef for violating the topic ban, but I can't seem to find the case; his talk just says banned indef. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You probably already know this, but our mutual friend was unblocked after a CU was run on him. I was curious, though; he was reported on the SPI for ZORDANLIGHTER by another user, and the CU said unlikely. But, does the CU only check for links between those two, or does it check for links between the reported user and any other account? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of template - ??

Re this, {{only-two-dabs}} is called for by WP:TWODABS and is not a direct call for deletion. The title was originally for the people, changed to "FOO people" by Kwami, with Sawi and similar titles rendered Sawi people, then when that was nominated for what should be a non-controversial move as mandated by TITLE and more, and validated by a good 80 RMs on the same issue - redirect to original title/primary topic, because of his removal of that template it was deemed "controversial" so because it's a TWODAB and doesn't need to exist as such, when a hatnote will suffice and is called for by guidelines; Kwami then converted it into a two-dab page as he did with many others, which I note you also removed the what-should-be-innocuous {{only-two-dabs}} template from also. As for filing RMs on all of these, the last time I tried bulk RMs they were shot down for procedural reasons, and I was told to file individual RMs on them; all of which Kwami opposed, 90% plus of which were moved as nominated. But those RMs I have since been castigated for as a "frenzy" of moves and even had it claimed they were undiscussed moves, rather than being RMs.

What's controversial to ME is the way people don't recognize what guidelines and policy say and are weak-kneed about "controversy" because one editor, who performed thousands of such moves without any discussion, is now determined to stop any such reversions of his non-policy moves by any means necessary. Including edit-warring over templates which are called for by guidelines.

"IF you want to change these, take it to RM" is really quite ironic statement, considering none of Kwami's moves were challenged at the time; those that have been - the vast majority of them, starting with Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move last year, and 80+ since, have been closed/moved despite his opposition.

I hear "all these requested moves are taking up the community's time" and I was told to use technical requests to move basic things like redirect-to-old title/primary topic.....a lot of those went through until Kwami started edit-warring over the presence of the db-move template, even as he's edit-warred over these TWODABS.

What a waste of time to tell me to take these to RMs when standing procedures and policies already exist, and when RMs were never used to move them in the first place.Skookum1 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least you did this "restore to pre-edit version" except that the edit war did not begin with adding db-move as called for by policy and what is on the technical requests section of RM.... the edit war began when Kwami started removing them. BIG difference. He lost all the RMs of this kind, now he has used edit-warring to stymie them being technical/speedy moves; at least these now go back to primarytopic, though the original titles, pre his undiscussed moves of 2010-11 (worldwide) were where these all should be reverted to. And it should be him who has to argue for the inclusion of "people" in the article title. RMs should not be needed for moves of this kind; all that's controversial is Kwami's insistence that TITLE/PRIMARYTOPIC et al. are superseded by his own re-authored WP:NCL; and his ongoing use of subterfuge and misrepresentations, and determination to make me controversial for opposing his agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, and unfortunately you are giving the impression that you are not listening. I think you will find all the answers to your points in what I wrote here [9], and I also ask you to pay close attention to my requests here [10] and here [11]. I'd really hate to see this conflict end in administrative sanctions, against either or both parties, but at this point I must warn you that I'm prepared to take such action, including blocks if necessary, if you can't dial the heat down.

Actually, speaking of heat, maybe it would help if you could just take a step back and say to yourself: "it is actually not very important if an article title has 'people' in it or not". It's one of the perpetual mysteries of Wikipedia conflicts that the most bitter disputes and the ones that people get most hopelessly entangled in are invariably those that are over the most trivial and most superficial style issues (like whether yoghurt should be spelled with or without "h", or whether the "the" in "the Beatles" should be capitalized.) That's not to belittle your efforts; I'm just trying to help you get some sense of perspective back.

Finally, as a matter of information, you speak of multiple precedents in earlier move debates, but I'm actually not seeing any that are of the kind we are dealing with here. Talk:St'at'imc#Requested move was about a choice between two entirely different names of an ethnicity, not a choice between plain "X" and "X people". I might consider my position if you could document a clear and consistent pattern of precedents regarding this kind of situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The St'at'imc move was related, he had moved St'at'imc first to St'at'imc people in the course of his world-spanning "FOO people" moves (but even so incomplete and inconsistent); he realized the title was redundant ('imc=people) and so moved it to the archaic and somewhat incorrect Lillooet people; Lillooet is my hometown, and I know many St'at'imc people quite well; but while that title was at the Kwami-made version (and a lot of others in Category:First Nations in British Columbia), that the "anglicism + people" format was used to pass Skwxwu7mesh->Squamish people, which resulted in a Kauffner-programmed bot to change the category....to Category:Squamish, which was overturned by CfD to Category:Squamish people.....then without any previous actions in British Columbia, Uyvsdi re-created the plain-jane "Squamish" category, the big problem with which is that the clear and away primarytopic of that name is the town Squamish, British Columbia; complicating that further, many and perhaps the majority of Skwxwu7mesh don't live in Squamish but in North Vancouver.

Her reason for the Squamish cat? Because, she said in her edit comment, "FOO people" is a standard convention for "people who are FOO". Yes indeed, so "Squamish people" means "people from Squamish" in its primary usage...... during the CfD following, she did concede she could "live with" Category:Skwxwu7mesh, but by then so many simplistic non sequiturs and fake claims about guidelines saw me respond in detail so much that TLDR was used by the closer even though it's not supposed to be invoked in discussions and its use is, in its own text, taken to be unCIVIL. What the upshot is that the facts and stats and policies presented were not read at all, and the support votes, particular from other Canadians and t hose actually familiar with BC, were ignored, and someone in Ireland made the call who has no clue about thed town of Squamish or the Skwxwu7mesh people; as was done in ignorance of facts on the ground in other RMs negatively closed by the same admin.

Hundreds of categories in the Category:FOO people format are exactly that, and so the danger is in someone CFDsing categories to add "people" to the category title per the main cat. That the "people" dab has been added at the same time as retrenching out-of-date older-source names, such as at Chipewyan people, Sarcee people, Dogrib people, Slavey people - in those cases not just obsolete but derisive in origin (all but Chipewyan have been RM-reverted and I'm not alone in dispute the "logic" used by the closer there). So it DOES matter whether "people" has been added, in various ways; the mess that has been created is vast and complicated; all because someone rewrote a guideline to suit himself and went on a tear.....and when confronted about it, said something to the effect that the guideline was hard-and-fast and if I didn't like it, tough.

How many RMs will it take to revert all the damage? How many hundred diffs of Kwami's do I have to spdend days compiling? All to hear people bitch that I'm being disruptive and call me names (like K does very often, so much so that my responses wound me up at an ANI where my responses to him were fielded without his provocations. I'm learning that logic and guidelines don't matter in Wikipedia; obstinacy does, and pointing at yet more procedure to solve violations of policy/guideline is the norm. And that obfuscation and lies are taken at face value at ANI and in RMs......moves spelled out in Technical Requests and clearly in line with what it says and what policy says should not be controversial. Kwami objecting does not constitute a true controversy; just more disruption.Skookum1 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm beginning to lose my patience now. I asked you what I think was a clear question: can you substantiate the claim that there is a set of precedents illustrating a consensus regarding cases like the present ones, where the issue is exclusively that of a choice between plain "X" and "X people"? Instead of answering, you again go off on a tangent, complaining about half a dozen other cases where entirely different factors were at play: category structure rather than article titles; difference between autonyms and anglicised heteronyms; disambiguation problems with yet other, geographical entities... – pretty much everything except the thing I asked about.

You won't like to hear this, but at this stage I don't see any other way of getting this across than in the form of a formal warning: you will need to change your attitude and your manner of operation in this whole set of disputes, or you will soon end up blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'll note that some of the claims you made about prior cases above also seem to be false. In the Slavey people article, it is neither the case that the move to the "...people" format went together "at the same time as retrenching out-of-date older-source names" – neither the ethnicity nor the language articles had ever been under any name other than "Slavey" – nor is it true that a move in that case was reverted per RM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an existing block

I urge you to take action over this edit summary, made whilst the user is blocked. This really shouldn't become another one of those situations where an editor gets away with this stuff for so long that everyone becomes too scared to take action and they can do what they like. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I request your help unblocking a user, please?

G'day Future Perfect at Sunrise,

A friend from Poland mailed me that he did receive a mail from wikipedia stating that his account is blocked. Your user-ID is mentioned in this mail as the one who implemented a block on 31.61.128.0/19. The friend's account is inaccessible at the moment User:JurekP so he's unable to edit a page that he's working on, namely Jerzy Porębski. I can't find any relevant info that states if or why is is blocked, nor can his user-ID be found in the page explaining the rationale for blocking this IP-range for sockpuppetry by User:Wikinger

Thanks in advance. Qwrk (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the inconvenience about that range block. Just for some background, you might want to point your friend to pl:Wikipedia:Blokada edycji dla sieci Orange i Play; it's the same vandal we are dealing with here. The range block is currently set to disallow only logged-out editing and creation of new accounts from that network. There isn't really any block on his account; it's just that he'll find his IP blocked when he tries to edit logged-out. Once your friend has access to an account, he should be able to edit normally again. So if his normal account is "inaccessible" (not sure what you mean by that; forgot the password?), then there'd be two solutions (short of recovering that password somehow): either create a new account from a different network (e.g. from a school or public computer), or request creation of a new account via Wikipedia:Request an account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I will try and explain this to him as best I can :-)

Qwrk (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Greeks article talk

Hello FPS

I would appreciate a moment of your time on this article's talk page - basically I don't like the tag and would be happy to work with whoever put it there to solve the issues. Please see below. Also your thoughts on the viability of a genetics section. Thanks and take care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greeks#Names_section_.2B_External_links

--Anothroskon (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE#Buttons

Hello FP. Since you opened this complaint and it may be progressing towards sanctions of Bobrayner and IJA your further comment would be welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you block..

Typical Indo-Pakistani edit warriors wreaking havoc on the articles Tandoori chicken, Chicken tikka, Chicken tikka masala, Chilli chicken. Dozens of reverts on each article and 3RR abused, surprised the blocks haven't made already. Mar4d (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Dear User as you know Director and myself experience often difficulties in communication. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about this problem. I must confess that I genuinely believe he deals with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And perhaps I am the guilty one (and I would accept the consequences of this RfC.

If you want to partecipate to the disscussion as a "User who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional user endorsing this cause for concern") you can do at [[12]].

To avoid the suspicion of canvassing I am contacting all the users involved in previous and present disputes. If you think I forgote someone please tell me.Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Knitwitted

I've been very patient with this user, but this is the third time I've given her a warning. Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Block

Nothing personal, but for my own sanity, yes, I would like to be blocked. I do believe that a clique of ethnocentric, anti-Semitic POV pushers is routinely gaming the admin process. There are editors who can deal somewhat effectively with this but I am not one of them. Honestly, I have little motivation to improve articles on sound recording so long as chauvinism and bigotry are steadily rotting Wikipedia out from the inside, with very few setbacks. I wish I'd never been made aware of this.

As for the "derailing" it would be helpful if admins stepped in sooner and requested that contributions be hatted or moved to the talk page. I would ask that they be mindful that "derailing" is a favorite, highly successful tactic of seasoned POV squads, but my faith in Wikipedia isn't such that I believe voicing this complaint would be in any way productive. More optimistic editors might have greater success. For real, right now my feelings are "let it burn."--Atlantictire (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

unconstructive ranting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's been happening with indigenous peoples' topics and ENGVAR issues with Canadian titles and content, and yes, "steadily rotting Wikipedia out from inside" and "chauvinism and bigotry" are rife in one way or another, when not simply parochial linguistic colonialism from UK/US editors and edits; "burn, baby, burn" is an increasingly common sentiment and alienation of valuable contributors because of the entrenchment of various attitudes and simplifications of guidelines which should prevent such problems; but such problems are avoided as "controversial" and wind up being shelved and more picayune matters are made bearpits of accusation, misdirection and censure; my comments in the previous section here are one aspect of this, there's more. Best wishes in the real world; it may be that your interests in writing are more valuable and less subject to nitpicking and obstructionism than you will ever find here.Skookum1 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism

I noticed you just blocked 2607:fcd0:100:2300::16b:a1a4 for vandalism, but just curious, why didn't you delete User talk:Sungam, the vandalism talk page they created?Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

not that you care, but....

I wasn't very impressed by your summary "final warning" to block me re he-who-shall-remain-nameless, but since you probably don't have my talkpage watchlisted, just wanted to draw your attention to examples of the continuing and long-standing behaviour I have been dealing with from the other party, both of which I have removed from my talkpage as harassment/crap here and here; the latter you may have seen as it was added right after your threat to block me because, well, it can't be helped that 95% of the titles that have been consensus/RMd back to where they belong had been moved by him, despite his fierce opposition and habit of making snotty and patronizing comments aplenty, such as "no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally", which was copy-pasted across a good twenty or more RMs; my responses to him were fielded in Uysvdi's noxious ANI against me without any mention at all of the insults and provocations which had brought them on; one-sided, narrow-minded freaking-out and application of "behavioural guidelines" when actual content guidelines are ignored, or equivocated away as with BHG's illogical close at Swinomish and elsewhere (at variance with dozens of identical RM nominations closed/moved by Xoloz, BDD and Cuchullain; in this case a simple redirect from the original title to the arbitarily/undiscussed-move one which has no reason to exist other than @#$%#$#$% bureaucratic inertia and also anti-Skookum1 sentiment on the part of that closer).

That "he" seems to have a hall pass to say and do anything he wants and I get reamed by kangaroo courts and threatened with blocks by admins who don't know the background and seem blind to his excesses is a friggin' joke. My thoughts on the whipping on behavioural guidelines vs the unwillingness to act on real guidelines pertaining to content and title are here; I did not name him, though perhaps that's enough for you to use your arbitrary/discretionary power to punish me for speaking the truth about the situation and his long roster of anti-guideline anti-policy activities.

I've been avoiding Wikipedia since your block-threat, and living in the real world, though keep an eye on my watchlist; today's exchange resulted from what would have been an edit-war at Twana, which originally had redirected to Skokomish people but he presumed to move it to the language article, on the premise that there was no ethno article at Twana; the reason for that is that nearly all of the nine Twana groups are now part of the Skokomish Tribal Nation; rather than engage him in the edit-war activity he is so fond of, I change the redirect into the basis of the ethno article it should always have been, if separate at all from Skokomish (another title that should have remained there instead of being moved without any discussion to Skokomish people).

I have numerous important and needed articles to create; Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1862, Skeena War, Cassiar Gold Rush and more including several other ethno articles; and in writing them I don't like having to use piped dabs for common usages, or archaic and/or derisive exonyms applied by him as undiscussed moves; all the result of undiscussed moves and/or the entrenchment of same by the negative closes of RMs by BHG and another editor; see the section after the Chipewyan RM as to what other Canadians think of such bad closes by someone who doesn't know the material and who misquotes/misuses guidelines); whatever, if my standing up to him winds up in me being blocked while he walks scot-free despite snipes and insults then it will just underscore my increasing scorn for the narrow minds and perempetory ways of the adminship, and I am not alone in that sentiment to say the least.

For me to be condemned for my "attitude" by the Nurse Ratchets of Wikipedia is a tiresome bore...as is having "him" show up on my talkpage being rude and insulting and nobody does f-all about it....for about three years now, in fact....... in-group/out-group b.s. IMO and I'm sick of it. I could come up with a few hundred diffs of his that are all ANI/AE material but geezus how much time of my life have I already put in here to deal with b.s. thrown at me for trying to apply guidelines and policies.... I'm tired of feeding the beast (meaning the maw of the ever-hungry adminship) and dealing with childish bullshit and schoolmarmish punishing of the person being bullied (me) by someone who seems to be "teacher's pet".Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My problem at this moment is that I have in the meantime got involved in an editorial dispute with Kwami myself and can no longer take administrative action against him – if it wasn't for that, I would probably block him for those edits to your page, and I couldn't blame you if you wanted to ask for such a block at ANI (only, if you do, for heavens sake be concise and matter-of-fact.) To tell you the truth, at this moment I feel about as frustrated with Kwami's behaviour as you did. Not that this invalidates my criticism of your own behaviour the other day, but I do realize that Kwami can be extremely difficult to deal with at times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Asinine" sums up his conduct, and if you'd been dealing with his gamey-ness these last few years in dozens of RMs and a wildly illogical "discussion" at NCL and more you'd be responding to his crap in much the same terms as you dressed me down for; Callanec, after placing discretionary sanctions on the NCL "debate", told me on his own talkpage that the route to go to deal with him is an AE (enforcement); ANIs are full of twaddle; Kwami's own series of groundless ones against me, Maunus' completely hypocritical one was full of bunk as well as AGF and false claims as to what I had been doing, and imputed motives of all kinds to me, and Uysvdi's and BHG's ANIs against me were similar; one-sided, hectoring, hysterics and pompous patronization of all kinds, from admin-rabble I'd never even heard from before spouting off about "the community is tired of you" and other cult-like crap of various kinds. People don't seem to have reading comprehension abilities; but still get admin powers and use them for stupid things; my first block from Zoe long ago was about an alleged legal threat I'd made; actually I had said that someone had made a real physical threat against me in email and a news site's postings; that was taken by Zoe to be a "legal threat" on my part; even in withdrawing her block she edit-commented that I had "retracted the threat" as if I'd made one. Then to be blocked in the middle of a Canadian election while trying to AfD obvious political campaign ads masquerading as wiki articles by a teenager in Scotland with no political acumen or knowledge of Canadian affairs was the cause of a long boycott on my part after that block was lifted; it was during my absence that the sea of undiscussed moves which he did and included the first five RMs I challenged him at (St'at'imc and four others) and were the root cause of the necessary hundreds of others, only a few of which were stymied by ignorant, guideline-misquoting closers who didn't even try to confirm claims by "oppose" votes and ignored votes and view stats and googles; and for all of which I've been insulted, degraded, and attacked and baited; he was accused of BAITing me in last year's RMs, and I see that he's up to his usual b.s. at the Gaelic languages thing; yet people give him credit where credit is not due; and respect where he shows none. Wikiquette sucks when it encourages such obstreperous behaviour but is used to punish those who point it out....and TLDR is used an excuse for "I don't want to have to think but still want to have my say", including by closers who indulge in personal snipes in their closes...all against the very guidelines that are misquoted to rule against me or even block me summarily. Kwami is one of many sideshows of the mounting irrelevance to reality of where Wikipedia is heading, and why so many people have left; if not for certain key history/geography articles still in need of contributive writing and the vast ocean of unedited bad-English articles in non-US, non-Canada, non-UK, non-anglosphere country-articles; Wikipedia needs intelligent, informed editors; tolerating fools and jerks while hectoring sane contributors beleaguered by fools and jerks is..... an exercise in anything but "community" building. Why anyone would change thousands of articles with pointless, often inaccurate or unsuitable dabs, then fiercely war to prevent their reversion to their original state while complaining that "thousands of articles are at risk" (in his CANVASS on WP:Languages about NCL) when they were of his own devising..... I don't know; I can 't discern his motives; it may just be that he craves attention and likes f******g with people; an energy vampire we call people like that where I'm from. I see little point in going to ANI when I've been the whipping boy there too often for no good reason other than insecurities and a prissy sense of wikiquette that only I get dressed down for, and those ANIs are full of NPA and AGF comments and attitudes not worth further comment. On my userpage one of my maxims goes "a consensus of fools is only foolishness" and that's where I see Wikipedia going; my watchlist I see all kinds of tiny tweaks to articles but nothing really useful; and CfD and RM discussions are full of the same increasingly small pack of small minds more obsessed with "behavioural guidelines" than with the validity of integrity of titles and content and the policies which are supposed to guide them..... Might I point out that by involving you in some conflict with him it's a way of preventing you from taking action against you; manipulation of the system and the known mores of the adminship; word-games and posturing. Do you know the story of Against Timarchos? That speech was launched by Lysias to prevent Timarchos from launching a prosecution against him; former prostitutes could not speak at the Assembly, y'see. Defamation, misrepresentation, character assassination and the like are all old legal techniques; manipulation of victim and witnesses and the judges all part of the game. But writing an encyclopedia should not be a "game"........nor should people who "game" other editors be given the credit they don't deserve. People presuming to authority should start acting like they deserve it, and not use it wantonly which I've seen way too much of; there re no rules, but you'd never know that by the mounting instruction creep in Wikipedia and the fervence seen in the behaviour of those using them in an ironclad fashion but who don't really have a grasp on teh subject matter, and quite often, will claim that knowledge of a subject is irrelevant to decision-making on Wiki guidelines...even though said guidelines are apparently not even read fully by the same people saying that....ignorance has become its own excuse. Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, god knows I'd like to help you, but the above rant shows just why you won't find any such help. In the future, if you haven't got anything constructive to say, please don't come here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TLDR is not supposed to be used on discussion pages, and using is often unCIVIL; though here I "get" that nobody wants to hear things they don't want to take the time to read; you might learn something if you did; TLDR has been used offensively against me many times, and to me it speaks to either impatience with what someone has to say, or actual reading comprehension problems; the former applies here; but given that this is all a complicated matter, it's not easy to put into 200 word point form. Similarly "rant" in reference to long text is a pejorative usage unbecoming of true wikiquette. As noted elsewhere, I'm staying out of your ANI re Kwami, more because I'm disgusted by the whole affair; there are reams of diffs I could add there (have a look at WP:NCL and WP:NCET talkpages, though there are scads of RMs and other places that testify to "all of the above" about what you and others have said there. "Something must be done"...but experience has shown me that nothing will.Skookum1 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:this

What happened was, I uploaded the exact image but under an inappropriate title, so this Juno 100 image is essentially a duplicate. I tagged the previous image with the inappropriate title for deletion. Currently the two articles using the image are Lely Juno family and Technology in Star Wars. I had a brief exchange with the owners of the item whom have pictures of it posted on their website and obtained their permission. I an going t add more pictures hopefully today. I'll include their contact information if wikipedia requires their confirmation. Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Update

Since I was able to contact the manufacturers of the Lely Juno robot series, I can directly get images form their main site and use them instead, they have given me permission. If you still think that image does not meet the fair use requirements then go ahead and delete it, but do inform me of it first. Thanks. Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that such a permission is only useful to us if it is given in terms of a fully free license, such as cc-by-sa, allowing free re-use by anybody else, not just a permission for use on Wikipedia. Failing that, we have to treat the images as non-free under the WP:NFC rules, and that means they fail the non-replaceability test. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please review

I have a started a thread about possible breach of sanctions you have enforced towards one of the users here[13]. Since you were the admin responsible for the sanction, I believe it is appropriate to notify you of possible breach of these sanctions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary by Puerile Schoolboy?

You can read the edit summary if you use your admin tools. I requested that it be suppressed, but the decision was that it should be redacted instead. Thank you for blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What a mess

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo should probably be speedied? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rajsector3

Hi, Fut Perf. You blocked Rajsector3 for tendentious editing, and I can certainly see your point, but I had asked him a couple of hours earlier to respond on ANI, saying he wouldn't have to be blocked if he took all article creation (which is what he chiefly does), through WP:AFC. Calton has agreed with my proposal. Would you object to an unblock for the purpose of responding at ANI? Bishonen | talk 13:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

If you think it's worthwhile, no problem. I honestly have my doubts; I can't really see this user editing without a massive amount of time and energy being invested in supervising them, but if you want to give it a try, please do. Sorry for not seeing earlier what exactly the state of your negotiations were at the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

NP. I'll unblock, then, and so note on ANI. I share your worries, but not your guarded optimism (?) about the usefulness of tutoring/adoption. I wouldn't encourage anybody to invest perfectly good time in that. The AFC process could hopefully deal with the problem a little more briskly, and give the user some tough love. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC).

Unblocking request

Hi. May I request unblocking of User:Persia2099? He is one of our trusted users on Persian Wikipedia and is author of a featured article there. He now is aware of image copyrights and promised me to do not upload copyrighted files. Thank you :) –ebraminio^talk 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) –ebraminio^talk 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Handré Pollard

Hi there, You recently deleted the file "Handré Pollard.jpg" because "source website is not freely licensed". That photo was taken from www.irb.com/jwc/mediacentre/index.html, which is the IRB Junior World Championship media centre, which contains rights-free photographs and audio, according to this page. What am I missing here? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a bit of a mess. I admit I didn't see the phrase "rights-free" on that page, but then again, I still don't see any licensing statement on the media center page itself; what I do see is the link under "disclaimer", which leads here; that page unambiguously describes the entire site and all its contents as non-free. And "rights-free", whatever it means, certainly doesn't automatically translate to "cc-by-sa-3.0", as you tagged it. Could you maybe try to contact the site to ask if they are okay with a fully free release? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you've made a friend...

Special:Contributions/82.221.100.1. I've just blocked the IP for 36 hours, but if this is a known vandal/problem editor you are aware of, feel free to change, lengthen or reduce the time if it is necessary. Cheers! Resolute 13:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks; Wikinger, as usual. Best protocol is to look up the Whois: if it's in Poland, softblock the entire range no matter how big; if it's anywhere else, always hardblock as open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Shadotwala.jpg

Please tell me why you deleted File:Shadotwala.jpg. 1. It said I must bring proof the owner said its fine by 29 June 2014 not the 24th 2. I already emailed you with permission.

Thanks ~~Dovikap~~ user:dovikap

Ah. I deleted it because I saw you changing the source link on the image page, seemingly in response to the request for evidence of permission, so it looked as if you wanted to say that that new source link contained the required permission. Since that wasn't the case, I concluded there was nothing else to wait for. If you have proper e-mail licensing, then of course it can be restored. Unfortunately I don't have direct access to the permission e-mail queue myself (assuming you sent that to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org"). What kind of permission statement is it, a full explicit licensing statement mentioning release under something like "cc-by-sa" or the like? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi! Tell me, please! I was blocked because sockpuppeter on the talk page Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo! And my voice was closed .... Now I can leave voice or is no longer have rights? --Jeromjerom (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend you keep away from that article and everything surrounding it at least until the whole controversy about it is over, and instead go and demonstrate you are able and willing to contribute constructively in other, uncontentious areas during that time. Going back and insisting on putting yet more votes into that AfD is a rather bad idea. (It also happens to be pretty pointless, given the state of the discussion.) Just be glad you weren't blocked for longer and do something useful elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But me talk Dord: Jeromjerom, now that your block has expired, you are allowed to edit. However, you are not allowed to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a discussion such as the deletion discussion you mentioned. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:11, 24 June 2014.--Jeromjerom (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, DorD gave you his advice; I gave you mine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ок. Please, then return version [14] . I did not break the rules. I do everything by the rules. .--Jeromjerom (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

or at least leave my answer-discussion, which was removed a week ago [15]. --Jeromjerom (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Unicode 7.0

FYI, 7.0 was released last Monday. VanIsaac_WS^cont 16:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The page at [16] is still saying it's "pending publication" and will only be officially released in October, but it's not as if I care much either way. I was basically only reverting that harassing psychopath User:Wikinger. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes I can see the confusion. That's just the core specification. All of the new characters and updates to data files were released on the 16th. The new core specification has updates to the collation algorithm and IDNA compatibility. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Empire of Luxembourg Link

Hi, I'm wondering why we should remove the Empire of Luxembourg link from the Henry V of Luxembourg article before the deletion discussion on Empire of Luxembourg is finished? Thanks. Bananaman321 (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Faliscan

Hello, Future Perfect! I was looking at your User page and user boxes and came across the word "Faliscan" which I had never seen before, so I clicked on the link and read the article. I found it very interesting. I made a few minor copy-edits (mostly adding a few commas), and added some indentation to make the f/h "a." and "b." list look a little better, but I had a few questions I thought you might be able to answer. One is that in the section on f/h changes, there are a few Faliscan words to which no English equivalent is given, one in the prose text: hec and the others in the "a." list (hileo, hirmia, etc.). I wondered if you could add those. Also, I found a few things that were unclear, so I added "clarification needed" tags with a note to editors. Maybe you could clarify those things, too, and then delete the tags and questions. (I hope it was all right that I posed my questions there rather than on the Talk page.) I thought it was interesting that Faliscan habas is the same as one of the Spanish words for beans (the other being frijoles). I have a question: in the second paragraph in "Corpus", it gives a Faliscan sentence: foied vino pipafo, cra carefo and the Latin equivalent. I wondered if pipafo, meaning "drink", is related to the English word "pipette", a slender tube used in laboratories for taking up liquids. If it is, how did that word get into English? CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I hope you didn't take my language boxes too seriously here ;-) But I'll gladly try and see what I can do about the article; thanks for taking an interest in it. About the words you mention, since Spanish haba is evidently from Latin faba, and Faliscan haba is said to be from the same IE root *bʰabo (Latin f- regularly corresponds to IE *bʰ- too), the two words really seem to be cognates. About pipafo, since it appears to be cognate with Latin bibo, while pipette would be from Latin pipa ('pipe'), via French, I don't really see how a connection could work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your User boxes earlier. I can see you don't take yourself too seriously. I also love the photo of the macaque! The eyes are so beautiful and expressive (notice she's a female), and her teeth are in pretty good shape.

Thank you for the information. Do you think the English word "bean" or "beans" comes ultimately from that same IE root?

On another topic, I have the article on Pali on my watch list. A few weeks ago I came across something that sounded nonsensical to me. I added a "clarification needed" tag and a note to editors. A few days ago, another editor removed the tag and my note and made a minor adjustment to the sentence that to my mind didn't really resolve the problem. It's not a major issue, just a question of precision. I left a note on Kwamikagami's talk page, but he hasn't responded. Today I left a note on the talk page of my fellow retired English teacher editing buddy, User talk:Rothorpe#Pali to see what he has to say about it. But since you are knowledgeable in linguistics, perhaps you could take a look at it, too. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and make the edits. CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Socratic barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your amazing compromise / idea on "Template talk:Largest cities of Kosovo" which I would have never of thought of. Sorry it is rather late! Kind regards IJA (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

TheIPInfo's report on you at 3RR

How does a user with only 4 talk page edits manage to find ANEW? Looks like a sock, any idea who it might be? If you don't see the report that's because Ian thomson removed it. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Ian who got into a battle with the user and warned Ian. Even if turns out to be a sock, Ian shouldn't be removing reports from AN3. I'll go look at it now.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sidurisadvice.com

I've woefully neglected Talk:Siduri and Epic of Gilgamesh, but looking at it now I'm concerned with what I see as a continued effort to promote this website. Talk:Siduri was not just being used for bad translations, it was being used to promote some sort of metaprojects (with our wikiproject links being removed). I've reverted back to the earlier version - that stuff was completely OT and OTT, unless you see some merit I missed.[17] The new 'collaborative image' is also publicising this website. The image has credits to the website embedded in it and the text also credits it. Side issue, if that is a translation of the entire text, isn't it copyvio?

I've restored the machine translations and change the image at Epic of Gilgamesh to one not promoting this website. The website is still being used to state there is a campaign to display the tablet - surely we should have independent sources mentioning this? Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

He's still promoting his 'project' at Talk:Siduri. He's moved the text to his user page. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And created a new 'profile', ie account. See User talk:Siduri-Project. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rarevogel

3 obvious abuses of sources today. [18], [19], and [20] which is a repeat of his first edit although I quoted the source to him on his talk page. This[21] looks problematic but is a different issue, same pov. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Architectural Art

Hi - Thanks for the message. I'm not sure whether you're watching my page but I left a response there. Cxw1044 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

New reply on my page. Cxw1044 (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK - so I went back to the photographer and they emailed me that they are happy to release with the commons license. I forwarded the reply to permission-en@wikimedia.org. I uploaded the image with the updated license info but it still looks the same. What are the next steps? Cxw1044 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. You can just add a note about the licensing directly on the image description page. (Simply use the "edit" button like on any other page; if you go via the "upload a new version" it will just overwrite the file itself but not change the description text, which is a bit stupid of the software.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

You have been involved in this issue so I think you should see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_topic_ban_for_Andy_Dingley Werieth (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

It seems to take a couple of days, but shortly after your first block[22] along comes an anagram[23]. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The timing, naming and overall behavioural and topic profile are certainly suggestive, but it's a bit difficult to call it a duck as long as there are no specific article and edit overlaps, isn't it? Maybe worth filing an SPI to get some more eyes on it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems unlikely that these articles would be edited by both.[24] Both do mobile edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, guess that nails it. Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Q

You seem to be a down-to-Earth personality, I really don't have too much dispute re your block of me. On another topic, I'd like to consult you re a Q/confusion I have re IBAN, and may I send you private Email re same? Thx for your consider. Respectfully, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maniots, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tsakonian and Dorian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

FirstGroup logo

Hi, I noticed you've listed the logo for review,
So what's the difference with this logo being used on daughter articles and Arriva/Stagecoach having logos on there daughter articles?,
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably only that nobody has yet gotten round to cleaning those other cases up. There are a lot of cases of poorly-thought-out uses of non-free images that slip through in various corners of the wiki. For these cases, the relevant guideline is WP:NFC#UUI, in particular #17 in the list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Thought you should know about this edit by User:Bobrayner, apparently ignoring talk, which you participated in, and reinserted the disputed content without reaching a consensus. Buttons (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disappointing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Betacommand

did you know it was him? did you investigate his contribution history at all b4 you blocked others? It was clear the two accounts were connected ducks after two mins of simple investigation, did you do any investigations before blocking good faith complainants? Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't know it was him. I didn't look much into it, because, believe it or not, I was never familiar enough with Betacommand to recognize his pattern, nor was I particularly interested in his case, nor had I had any particular involvement either in getting him banned or in defending him back then. I would never have discouraged legitimate editors to bring forward legitimate suspicions through the legitimate SPI channels, and if they had done so, I might well have taken action accordingly. However, what counted for me in this whole affair was not so much the socking suspicion as such, but the fact that it was being pursued by a wikihounding troll through a series of obvious throwaway harassment sock accounts (see User:Formal Appointee Number 6, the most recent User:GoFormer, and multiple others), and that some people such as Andy Dingley were systematically enabling and supporting that harasser. This is something I feel strongly about: on Wikipedia, nobody has the right to hound and chase down an opponent and push an agenda through by aggressive socking – not even if they are right. Nobody on Wikipedia must be subjected to wikihounding and harassment – not even if they are Betacommand. Nobody, not even a legitimate user in good standing, has the right to aid and abet and make common cause with a sockpuppeting harassment troll – not even if that cause would otherwise be just. As soon as that pattern of throwaway socks was apparent, the priority was not to chase down a potential Betacommand sock. The sole priority was to not let the harasser have his way. I therefore actually made it a point for myself to not look into his allegations, however plausible they may have been. I firmly stand by this stance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

even if someone is right you stood against them, sorry mate you have lost the high ground completely. I spent two or three mins after that internet addie left the user compare and it was clear that the two accounts were the same person and yet you used your permissions to block the good faith complainant, you should stand down with immediate effect Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I told you what I have to say; if you aren't able to grasp what I told you then that's no further concern of mine. I don't really see why I owe you specifically any explanations anyway. I'm not further interested in your opinions on the matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a note, I will point out that as it turns out Werieth was hounding and chasing down Andy through socking. I perfectly understand your point, but would ask that you consider that your own biases on issues that Andy and BC/Werieth were so much involved in. I acknowledge that I had pretty strong biases toward assuming the worst of Werieth (I felt he was clearly a troll and very likely BC), but I didn't even argue for him to be blocked (as best as I can recall). Whenever an admin find themselves thinking of using the bit in defense of those that they tend to agree with, it's well worth waiting for someone else to take that step. That should be in an admin guide somewhere if it isn't already: Block your friends, not the enemies of your friends. Because we all have biases and it can be really hard to keep them away from our decision making processes. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Khariboli, Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani Language wiki pages

Hi, All these articles mentions Khariboli originating from Hindustani which is not true, Hindustani originated from the popularity of Khariboli as the common vernacular. Khariboli originated from Shauraseni Apabhramsha . I am a native Hindi speaker and studied history of Hindi in my school. You can refer to Britannica article also for this. Can you get it corrected.

Ashok4himself (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid you are confusing two senses of "Hindustani", and you are also confusing the notion of "originates from" with that of "is part of". The tree schemes in our infoboxes are meant to explain what is part of what. "Hindustani" is, in its wider sense, the cover term for the entire set of varieties of Hindi, Urdu and all their local dialects. Khariboli is merely one of these local dialects; in this sense, Khariboli is part of Hindustani, and not the other way round. In a narrower sense, there is Standard Hindustani, comprising Standard Urdu and Standard Hindi. This standard variety may in fact have originated from one specific dialect (Khariboli) in some sense (or rather: its standardization proceeded on the basis of that local dialect), but that doesn't mean that the standard language is "part of" that local dialect. But whatever role Khariboli may play in the story, and no matter of whether we are talking of all of Hindustani (including all dialects of Hindi and all dialects of Urdu), or whether we are talking only of the standard forms (standard Hindustani, standard Urdu, standard Hindi), it is still uncontroversally true in each of these senses that both Urdu and Hindi are part of Hindustani. That's what the infoboxes were saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The spirit

"The intention behind Potw's restriction is to stop him from alienating other editors by pushing for the insertion of boxes in articles where others have previously chosen not to have any. Penalizing this edit would be counter to the spirit of this sanction." you wrote, and I thank you for that support! - You know a lot more than I do, because if this is the spirit, I don't know why Andy is restricted to not even add infoboxes to his "own" articles. (That's probably where you defended him first.) - I honestly don't know what the spirit of the restrictions is. - I commented on his talk, no need to repeat here, but I felt that your statement deserved more than the thanks-click ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

AN Close

Future, if your MfD is successful against my user subpage, then the clarification I was needing re use of IBAN to censor content (edit) commentary really becomes almost moot or even theoretical. (The theory still being, there's nothing at WP:IBAN prohibiting commentary on content; only commentary or interaction on users. I for one cannot believe that pure commentary on content where no direct or indirect discussion between users occurs is rightly classified "interaction between users". That just makes no sense to me.)

And although I admire your creativity to MfD to render my concerns at the ANs almost theoretical/moot, I honestly think you've forced a square peg in a round hole with the policy you quoted from WP:USERPAGE. And I really do think the list of what is allowed on user pages was a better fit. (But neither were a good fit; WP:USERPAGE just seems to not have thought of it.)

I had no intention or wish for drama at the ANs, I want you to know that. And I made probably a once-in-a-wikilife opening of an AN thread (against my personal policy; I think those forums are disgraceful and embarrassment for en.WP).

If my subpage still stands, then in my view no clarification consensus has been given by admins. (Sjakkalle's doesn't count; his view promted me to open the AN in the first place.)

Here is a Q not asked at the AN, I'm curious about it: when Drmies advised my fellow IBANer to discontinue discussion in a Talk:Chess thread where I contributed first, said IBANer protested vigorously that his/her dicussion comments were not prohibited by WP:IBAN. (And I believe that view is right. Not only that, but any view whereby WP:IBAN squelches content commentary becomes a virtual roving topic ban -- and that is not the spirit or letter of IBAN, even though IBAN seems imperfectly formed, and that is also not wholesome for article development in general, of course.)

I tried to be calm at the 2nd AN, in spite of the usual baiting.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dude: shut up. I mean that in the nicest possible way. You are headed down one road, and one road only: exclusion from this site. You hate the environment, you hate how admins and their cronies gang up on you. So then leave! Because no one is willing to listen to your gripes any longer. If it's you against the 'pedia: you will lose. Stop your whining already, seriously. Doc talk 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reduction of template protection

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, Could you please reduce {{Non-free use rationale 2}} from full to indefinite Template protection, to allow Template Editor access. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

Seems like Wester really doesn't want that umpteenth thread about why Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is such an unfair article name to be closed. Not sure what your protocol is for this, but I figured I'd bring it to your attention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Air Algerie, AH5017 Crash, Nationality graph.jpg

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, Can you please undelete the file, I'll help the editor apply the proper rational. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see absolutely no way this file could be justified. It's from a commercial agency; its function in showing the design of the aircraft could easily be fulfilled by free photographs and self-made graphs if necessary, and the same is even more trivially true for its function in showing the distribution of passengers across nations, for which a simple table would do. What would your rationale be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, and for saving me some doomed work :P Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 12:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted file

Under what license and tag should I upload it if I'm uploading it with permission? Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"With permission" is of little use for us unless it's a permission that's explicitly made under the terms of a fully free license, i.e. allowing for free re-use by others and for other purposes. If it isn't that, there is unfortunately no way we could use an image like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Help: ta.wiki - File Upload Wizard

Hi, I would like to deploy "File Upload Wizard" to Tamil Wikipedia. I have copied MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js, MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.css and Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard from en.wiki to ta.wiki. I made a bug report too. However, "File Upload Wizard" does not work. Could you help me on this issues. Thanks. --Anton^Talk 09:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tried it on ta-wp and was able to upload a file (ta:படிமம்:Test image to try upload script.jpg), so the basic functionality seems to be working. Maybe if it wasn't working for you right after you installed it, you hadn't refreshed your browser cache yet so the script wasn't properly loaded? In my experience, you have to load the FUW page, click "start the wizard" and then do a browser cache refresh after each update to the script. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I like to ask one more help. The default Upload method/old wizard (Special:Upload) has to be replaced by new "File Upload Wizard". How can I change it? Is there anything that I want to change in MediaWiki:Sidebar? --Anton^Talk 10:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Rarevogel

His edit at Hebrew language wasn't backed by the source. I've asked him to justify it - we shall see if he responds. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

His response was "what they call paleo-hebrew script is identical to Phoenician. If you werent at all lazy, you could have done some research yourself. Doesnt take much time to compare the too". Our articles on the two say they are closely related, nearly identical, but the source[25] in the article doesn't say Phoenician although he added it.[26] If you don't want to get involved do you think it's time for ANI? Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested on AN regarding a block you made

See this. You were the blocking admin, so I am notifying you as a courtesy. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:HistoryAddict2000

After calling Dougweller, Richard Keatinge and myself, vandals[27], I posted a warning on his talk page.[28] He responded by posting more personal attacks on Talk:Hunnic language(ie. bloody idiots).[29] and his personal page(ie. morons).[30] --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And more personal attacks.[31] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And now a bastard.[32]
I am amazed at the reaction from this editor when clearly shown their "sources" are not reliable![33] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali of Egypt

Problems at this article were brought to my attention. Saw your DS informational notice on Biar122's talk page. I've added it to the IP with a statement that the IP is Biar122 (which is obvious). Anyway, I'm keeping myself uninvolved on the issues so not editing the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If he's edit-warring on that article too now (in addition to, most recently, Theodoros Kolokotronis and several prior ones), it's definitely time for sanctions in my view. I cound as involved in this, so I can't impose them myself. Would you, or should it be taken to AE? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will, trying to find the appropriate wording for a !RR per week per article and discussion on talk page before reverting. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it on someone's talk page but can't find it, so asked EdJohnston. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for precedents of sanctions that involve obligation to discuss before reverting, I myself have handed out a few of them over time (although I think the "discuss-first-then-wait-then-revert" part usually hasn't worked that well, because people just don't get how it works). But you would find a few of them logged at WP:ARBEE and possibly WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Muhammad Ali of Egypt to stop the IP socking there. This editor seems to be making a tour through the articles of famous quasi-Albanians to promote the Albanian connection. His IP geolocates to Albania. My suggestion would be to have a serious discussion on his talk page with the possibility of an indefinite block if he won't listen to reason. We don't need new nationalist POV-pushers in this topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

See his edits at Mary Ball Washington who he turned into an Albanian. EdJohnston gave me the template but maybe I should hold off now as I doubt that anything is going to actually help. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Russavia sock

Special:Contributions/1.122.199.244

The guy just can't stay away. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• There's a new one: Special:Contributions/78.92.86.207.

Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In light of this, I've no objection to TAME being indefinitely semi-protected should this prove necessary. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that the ANI has been protected, he's continuing on the helpdesk as Special:Contributions/188.22.78.224. Reverted by Mdann52, but it probably wouldn't hurt if others keep an eye on that page too. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Hello. Would you care checking this thread? This editor has been inserting false/inaccurate etymologies for the past few months: [34][35][36][37][38][39], removing information [40] ("Because an opinion of someone R. S. P. Beekes has publiced we cannot change all the world-wrong place")[41][42]. I have tried numerous times to copiously explain what is wrong with their edits but they just remove the messages from their talk page and continue their reckless editing. Some of their edits are legitimate, but they always need to be reviewed for violations of WP:INTEGRITY and WP:V. Despite their previous personal attacks [43][44][45][46][47], I did reply in good faith to their last comment on my talk-page User_talk:Omnipaedista/Archive_1#tetra-. That did not work either. The last incident was a pointy retaliation: they opened an WP:AN/ANI in order to "denounce" my activity. Of course, the edit diffs they provided prove nothing. This is getting quite time-consuming. What would you suggest? --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's the Nazi?

I don't think User:86.132.231.1 is a proxy but it seems to be the same editor as a one you blocked editing through a proxy. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I don't understand traceroute.[48]. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. It's Wikinger, as usual. Any IP of his that isn't in Poland is an open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Abt Nepal Bhasa

Hi there. Thanks for your interest in the page Nepal Bhasa. I have requested a move to Nepal Bhasa or Nepal Bhasha as per my previous sources and a corrected google ngram viewer this and this. Apparently, we were comparing the whole sum of things related to Newar civilization when we were comparing Newar to Nepal Bhasha. When changing Newar or Newari to Newar language or Newari language, the ngram hits were far lower than that of Nepal Bhasha, which is the official term used by language regulating bodies, academicians and media of Nepal. I hope this clears the doubt about the popular use. --Eukesh (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Angelo Trovato: Now what?

This is the one where I thought the IP was Angelo and revoked talk page access. But, it wasn't. So now we have new account Onlylove18. They make the same sort of edits to the same articles. I think it could be his sister but is probably him. I'll leave this one to you. :)

Convenience link: User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive42#A talk page block

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Hi Future. I have started an RfC at the article talk. Your input is welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

I believe you may be as interested in etymology as Kwamikagami, but since Kwami is taking a break, would you mind checking the addition to the etymology section at Cinnamon? I'm not sure the statement about Hindi and Urdu belongs where it was placed, and I cannot judge the accuracy. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, cramming in unrelated foreign translations from random languages makes no sense at all there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and your clear and informative comment on the article's talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have time, may I ask your opinion on a slightly related issue regarding the wording of a sentence a little later in the article? Please read the discussion on my talk page at User talk:CorinneSD#Cinnamon beginning in the middle of the section where I pinged both Unicorn Tapestry and Rothorpe. I found a sentence to be somewhat unclear and, before I make any further attempt at clarifying it, I thought I'd ask you for your ideas about it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been resolved. CorinneSD (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

In the article on Mo'ne Davis, one of the notable things about her is that she is the first Little League Baseball player to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Since that is one part of her notability, is it fair use justified to use an image of the SI cover in her article? I am One of Many (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Esotericism

Just in case you didn't see it, there is an interesting comment regarding etymology on the talk page of the article Esotericism, at Talk:Esotericism#Etymology. CorinneSD (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Another Request for Comment on Ancient Macedonia

There has been another dispute arise at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Your input would be welcome. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Adamic language

Thanks to your earlier advice about this sock I mentioned this elsewhere and DoRD has blocked the range for a year. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pianist story

DYK José Carlos Cocarelli, remember? See the article again, wonderful collaboration (I am a bit ashamed to still be credited). There's more about him. Your question about the human reader is still on my mind: what if it doesn't serve you personally, but other human readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Willing to serve as closer for this discussion?

There is an ongoing merger discussion at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Suggested merge. It involves merging Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) into that article. The "invasion" article has been filled with controversy since it started, and hence I think it is appropriate to request an uninvolved neutral party to close the discussion and assess consensus when the time comes. I remember your good work in closing such discussions in the early days of Crimean crisis-related articles, so I thought you'd be a good choice for the role. If you're interested, it would be much appreciated. For reference, I'll also provide a link to this deletion discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of User:Makedonia

I reverted the page back to the last non-vandal edit, without the Hellenic Symbols, but it was autoprotected in Feb2014 due to vandalism, my edit removed the vandalism as well as the semiprotection, which was indefinite. Could you please restore the indefinite semiprotection?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makedonia

User that protected the page

11:26, 24 February 2014‎ Mifter (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,215 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected User:Makedonia: Persistent vandalism - User is retired ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)))

Macedonia (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

You might want to take a look at the series of edit, undo, edit, undo... at Dante Alighieri regarding the addition of a pronunciation for "Alighieri". The IP editor finally gave an explanation on Mugdal's talk page, for which M thanked him/her, but since you have a background in linguistics perhaps you can make the best determination as to the correctness or appropriateness of that addition. CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the IP's edit looks fine to me, though I'm not too familiar with Italian phonology. The German Wikipedia article provides a dictionary source for a transcription that matches this one (unless there's some technically significant detail I'm overlooking). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for looking at it. CorinneSD (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Greek-Turkish relations

I redirected the page because for every other country it is not used in adjective form instead of the country's titles and that's how it should be. Such as Iran-Turkey relations or Iran-Saudi Arabia relations. I just don't see why Greece-Turkey relations should be an exception.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the other articles are mostly wrongly named, because some people who didn't know English went on a rampage, first creating dozens of empty, mechanically created stubs on country pairings about which there was nothing to say, with that un-English naming scheme, and then using their self-created mass of (non-)articles as a pretext for obsessively moving all the other, existing articles into conformance with them, allegedly to bring them all into "uniformity". Fact is that for most of these titles, the adjectival form is the only one that is idiomatic, proper English, and virtually all articles that were created as proper, non-stub articles, by editors who actually cared about their content, had the proper adjectival title in the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Future Perfect. This editor has started a discussion about you at ANI here, but does not appear to have informed you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

110.22.64.13 block question

Hi FPAS! You have blocked 110.22.64.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) until October 11 for "disruptive editing". I understand that it seems the issue was the addition/removal of often incorrect content, without a source nor discussion. In reviewing the most recent contribs leading up to the block, I noticed most of them have not been reverted, and most of them provide a source for the change (in the edit summary). Can you provide a bit more insight as to what edits exactly led to reblocking the user for 2 months on August 11th? I am asking for details since you did not place a block notice on the user's talk page, nor indicated which diff(s) seemed to cause problem. Thanks in advance for taking the time to look into this so I can get a clearer picture before reviewing the user's UTRS ticket. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The offensive edits were those to population figures in country and ethnicity articles (I've been following it mostly on Greeks, but his behaviour on others appears to have been similar, e.g. Dutch people among his most recent edits). On Greeks, specifically, he has upheld an extremely persistent, long-term edit war trying to remove a directly sourced total population estimate and replacing it with his own OR calculation based on a number of individual estimates for single countries. He's just re-done that over and over again, over months, despite several previous blocks for the same behaviour, and without ever engaging in talkpage discussion beyond repeating his claims in edit summaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply; would you agree to an early unblock with a strong condition that they are TBAN'ed from editing about population counts, totals and/or estimates, as well as from the Greeks article? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was kinda hoping for your input on this, because I'd rather have your blessing before offering a conditional unblock. The block is due to expire on Oct. 10th, but perhaps an early unblock-with-condition might serve us better in the long term than letting the block expire and letting the editor go back to his problematic patterns. What do you think? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was away for a while after your initial enquiry and then forgot about it. If the user has shown some understanding about the role of sourcing and the OR thing, I obviously have no problem with an unblock. His on-wiki unblock request from a few weeks ago seemed to show no such readiness for a change of behaviour yet, but I don't know how far he has come in the meantime on UTRS. I'm happy to leave it up to your judgment if you can get him to see the light somehow; thanks for taking care of the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I was going to ask you why you semi-protected the article, Liancourt Rocks, without an explanation, but, reviewing the history, it seems that you protected it due to the Sea of Japan/East Sea debacle. Am I correct in assuming this? (Remember when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME) Luxure (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I am still awaiting thy reply. Luxure (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Delteing my user page

Hello, i'm requesting the deletion of my user page. I just feel the need to clear my history on it, that's all. -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User Blocked (?)

Hello. According to this edit, you have apparently blocked User:Ghsolt indefinitely, but the user is apparently able to edit articles now. Just letting you know in case this is a technical error. Regards. KJ ^Discuss? 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really remember anything about that case and why I felt certain he was a sockpuppet (and of whom). Apparently he was unblocked a few months later by another admin, who said he tried to contact me about it but got no response at the time; honestly, I don't remember anything about that either. In any case, I've now re-blocked him for an independent reason altogether, serial image copyright violations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I just found it back in my old E-Mails. It turns out I had had some pretty good reason for thinking he was one in a row of disruptive copyright-violating socks. Fellow admin King of Hearts contacted me about it after getting an unblock request via UTRS but I was on vacation or something at the time and only responded to him a week or so later; by that time he had already unblocked him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Images included in entry Pierre De Meyts

Dear sir, objections were raised to the use of the two images illustrating article Pierre De Meyts. I have already taken actions to make due corrections as suggested. Since some of these objections were related to your username, I would highly appreciate your kind revision of the whole case as well as your eventual further advice to avoid deletions of the images from said article. Many thanks. Neuralia (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Doubt

Why is this "at the very least, comes across as quite tendentious"? --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Glosses

Hello, FP. WP doesn't seem to have a standard markup for glossing words or phrases. Personally, I like the single-quote system, e.g., Bäckerei 'bakery'. The Chicago Manual of Style also suggests parenthesis or brackets: Bäckerei (bakery) or Bäckerei [bakery]. The MoS appears to prefer double-quotes over single-quotes, except for nested quotes, but I don't think the style Bäckerei "bakery" is widely used elsewhere. I'm thinking of suggesting the single-quote style on the MoS Talk page. Your thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I hate the MOS. Does this need to be prescribed? Of course, I'd personally also always go for the single quotes, out of my linguistics habits. The question is to what extent lay readers in general-purpose (non-linguistics) articles need the technical distinction between quoting a word and describing a meaning, but at least in the more technical language-related articles I'd certainly insist on preserving the distinction, and I don't like the brackets, so if the MOS currently can be read as not allowing the single quotes, that's just wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

More formatting

Your opinion would be welcome at the discussion about the colon in things like "Dutch: kip". I think it's wrong. --Macrakis (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Butter & Cream

Would it be inappropriate to post this massive list I've been compiling of users who have also been solely using Wikipedia to stir the Gamergate shit on ANI?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's all be friends

Hey, FP are you talking about this? I was under the impression that was resolved a loooong time ago [49] and I walked away with no bad feelings. If this current image is such a big deal, it can be deleted, sure. I actually try not to upload hardly any images these days because I don't really understand the process that well. No need to get upset, its just one picture on a small article that we can do without if its going to cause so much trouble. Have a great day. -OberRanks (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to that incident, and no, it was not "resolved" – fact is, of course, you "walked away" from it (and I don't care very much with what kinds of feelings), but that was a mistake; you ought to have been blocked at the time. You were found entangled in a series of lies, and I very much suspect you have been lying in exactly the same way again now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fabergé egg re: Excessive non-free content

On 25 September, you tagged Fabergé egg with a banner saying it had excessive non-free content. I've started a discussion on the article's Talk page, and I would appreciate it if you participated in the discussion. Thank you! Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban

debate over
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that this has happened before and the decision by @Callanecc: was: This complaint, if it's still to be called that, has been light on evidence of violations of policy or guidelines since the second comment. If editors believe that there has been a violation of policies or guidelines then that needs to be presented either here or at WP:AE with evidence in the form of diffs and explanation of onwiki actions. If editors continue to cast aspersions of each other in violation of WP:NPA and discretionary sanctions procedures they will be sanctioned. I would suggest that if editors believe someone has violated policies or guidelines they report them at WP:AE (if related to BLP discretionary sanctions) as it is specially designed or this type of thing or here. I'm afraid you've stepped into a bit of a hornet's nest here; these folks have been engaging in this behavior for some time, and there have been issues of folks misrepresenting what other people have had to say. See North's previous instance of claiming that I believed that "what you're saying is that the harassment of Quinn was justified because she had a dispute with TFYC? That she was "asking for it" and deserved it?" which others called him on; his misrepresentation here is identical in tone and structure. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Titanium Dragon, there's a difference between your violations of BLP in making those accusations and NorthBySouthBaranof repeating those accusations with an incredulous tone as to the fact that you made those accusations in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC) FPaS, Noting reasons to be skeptical of death threats over the Internet and show caution in how we describe them in the article is not a BLP violation. Allowing that death threats can be faked for attention and therefore, absent confirmation of a threat's origins, we should be tentative in assigning blame, is actually good editing practice. There are other explanations as well, but the issue here is that the credibility of the threats is at issue per the police statements, no clear confirmation has been provided regarding the origins of the threats, and it is widely reported that some believe the threats are being made by opponents or trolls to discredit GamerGate. I have to say this topic ban was incredibly hasty and should have been open to wider discussion beforehand given the basis. You jumped to re-imposing the indefinite topic ban over this singular comment in less than 30 minutes before anyone else could say anything about it and then delete comments as though they were a violation when they were clearly being written up before your rapid restoration of the indefinite topic ban. Basically, you topic-banned him over a debatable issue without even giving him a chance to respond first and then act like he is violating it when he posts a response that was likely being written up soon after the discussion was opened.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC) "it is widely reported that some believe the threats are being made by opponents or trolls to discredit GamerGate" — Actually, no, that's not widely reported and it is a fringe theory meriting no attention in the encyclopedia. No reliable source takes that claim seriously. The gist of the offending post is obvious to anyone. It represents a direct attack on the victims of the death threats, suggesting via a loaded question that they were responsible for faking death threats against themselves. It is yet the latest in a series of posts by Titanium Dragon which attempt to bring personal disrepute upon living people who have been subject to attacks from GamerGate supporters. Titanium Dragon was warned in the strongest possible terms by Callanecc — "I will give you an official discretionary sanctions alert shortly and note that anything and everything you do related the topic area may be considered. Past actions may also be used as background, so I'd suggest that there is a fairly low bar for tolerating misbehaviour." We have policies for a reason, Titanium Dragon can't possibly claim ignorance and despite multiple warnings, they seem hell-bent on finding ways to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack people they oppose. They have been given every opportunity to contribute constructively. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground, and the topic ban is sadly necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC) It is, actually, widely reported. Typically they report it as something that is objectionable or a conspiracy theory, but it is widely reported. Sarkeesian's whole "Listen and believe" thing was based on the claims that she and others faked or were otherwise lying about incidents targeting them. Noting that such things have occurred in the past and suggesting that absent confirmation about the origins of the threats we should be tentative in describing them in the article is appropriate on the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Please link those reliable sources. Moreover, if reliable sources report it as a conspiracy theory... then we would, at best, report it as a conspiracy theory, if we decided that conspiracy theory merited mention — which, given the lack of any significant adherence to it, we wouldn't. See WP:FRINGE. Titanium Dragon made the specific, horrible implication that the threats were fabricated by the victims for personal gain or out of mental illness, which is an entirely-unsourced, unsupported and itself-wholly-fabricated attack on those people. Anyway, this doesn't belong cluttering up FPaS' talk page. If Titanium Dragon wishes to appeal the topic ban, they can do so in the appropriate place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC) Not all of them say that and it wouldn't really be an accurate term anyway. My point is that it is raised in reliable sources, which are cited in the article, so Titanium Dragon alluding to that on the talk page and pointing out prior incidents where that did happen is not a BLP violation. He did not claim any named individual did anything. I looked over the comments myself and no such thing was said. What he did say was why someone might fake threats, linking to relevant Wikipedia articles on the matter, after mentioning a prior incident where someone did fake threats.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC) You're welcome to your opinion. The BLP issue with TD's post is obvious to anyone who isn't in the tank for GamerGate, as you have amply demonstrated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC) I will await Future's response since you are far too biased to discuss this reasonably.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon: I stand by my judgment. You were clearly insinuating that specific addressees of death threats in this affair may have invented these threats themselves in order to "play the victim"; this is just not on, and nothing of what you are saying now is relevant to that. NorthBySouthBaranof: please don't goad others by engaging them in this kind of circular and repetitive debate in yet more places, like here, and please leave the removal of potentially ban-evading posting of this kind to myself, on my page. Devil's Advocate: I'm not interested in having a discussion with you about this, but that's no surprise, as I've long ceased to be interested in any discussion with you about pretty much anything at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also from WP:AC/DS#Placing sanctions and page restrictions: The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process. The enforcing administrator must also log the sanction. (emphasis added). Hence partially the reason we have {{AE sanction}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Noted the oversight about the logging, doing now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

lachkrampflustigentitelswegen

[50]. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move pronunciations and other info from lead

I'm posting here to follow up on the recent Village Pump discussion, archived here, to move pronunciations and other info out of article lead sections. I'm inviting editors who participated in that discussion to comment on the Manual of Style:Lead section guideline. If you would like to participate, please add your comments to the discussion. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson

For what its worth, i supported the inclusion of the Bush misquote material in Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio, but i think you made the right decision. Those of us who were in favor of inclusion were never really able to satisfactorily address the undue weight question, which is a legit concern, in my view. Bonewah (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Question on standard of review for endorsement of the Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson Closure.

I was wondering, in your endorsement of the Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson Closure. Did you review the closure of the RfC by aprock for abuse of discretion (aprock acted reasonably in closing it, however you might have closed it differently)? Or did you endorse the closure upon reviewing it de novo (had you been the first person to close the RfC, you would have closed it like that)? Thank you for considering the question. --Obsidi (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of talk page?

How did Butters and Cream abuse their talk page? Viewing the history, I don't see any vandalism, insults, or any bad behavior. Maybe you can enlighten me on why you revoked talk page access, per WP:HARDBLOCK, should only be used if there is abuse of a talk page. Addition: I see that they were copying and trancluding other users' comments, including articles on Wikipedia. Though I'd still like to get your official reasoning on why you revoked talk page access. Tutelary (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll but in an point out that the sections "Embryo", "Larva", and "Newt" are all copyright violations (you can't copy and paste even from Wikipedia without attribution). Interestingly, they may also be copyright violations within the articles themselves because I found at least one copied from a book. I am One of Many (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's pretty weak reasoning, in my opinion. It is as weak as the reasoning given for the indef without warning, especially since the other party who blatantly violated 3RR got no block. Future imposing a topic ban with zero discussion on the editor who filed the 3RR report only makes it look even worse. He is also not accepting criticism on his talk page of that action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion on topic ban

I have started a discussionhere about the topic ban you imposed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Zero tolerance

I think we need to come up with a formal type of sanction under this policy, which I rarely support, that can be placed on a time-limited basis on article talk pages for particularly contentious articles. The MH17 article's talk page could certainly use it.--v/r - TP 20:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking advice for handling a content dispute

Hello,

I'm wondering if you could spend a few minutes giving me some pointers on how to deal with a content dispute. I'm not necessarily looking for you to comment directly on the relevant Talk page (although you are certainly welcome if you want to), but rather to point me in the right direction on how to proceed. The basics:

• An editor changed the lede of an article inserting an extraneous word that significantly changes the meaning without providing any citation for the new material. [51]
• the edit was reverted as it had no cite and was likely incorrect [52] and the reverting editor initiated discussion on the talk page [53] (first item in thread). Another editor agreed with the revert.
• It was quickly re-reverted without a descriptive comment by the original editor [54]. On the talk page, the original editor cited a book as the source. Further investigation indicates that the book makes no such claim.
• Three additional editors weighed in on the talk page, agreeing unanimously that the additional word should be removed.
• A sixth editor removed the word. [55]
• Again it was re-reverted by the original editor [56] without much in the way of an edit comment. At this point we are deep into edit warring and it should have gone back to talk, especially since there was still no cite backing it up.
• Another removal, by an as-yet-uninvolved editor. [57]
• Another re-revert by the original editor [58]
• All of the above occurred before I began participating in talk or editing. I basically stumbled upon the page looking for something else and found the first sentence of the article to be unreadable. So I looked at the talk page, made some comments, did a bit of research and determined that the source that was cited does not in fact support the text of the article. I removed the extraneous word, leaving a detailed edit comment to please discuss on talk before reverting and documented the reasons on Talk. [59]
• Re-revert? Of course, making it number four for that editor, although not in the same day. [60]
• In fairness, at this point the original editor did finally add a source for the material, an e-study guide, similar to "Cliff Notes". [61] To date, this is the only cite for the material that has been provided, despite repeated requests for better sourcing.

That's where the article stands at this point. I declined to participate in edit warring, but now there are about seven editors who have disagreed with the original edit, either through the talk page or by editing the article itself, with only one very tenacious editor reverting any attempts to change. I have tried discussing it with that editor on talk, but reached an impasse very quickly. The editor won't cite sources, or when he or she does inspection shows that the source does not support the claim.

I tried asking for additional eyeballs on the parent project pages' Talk pages, but have gotten little response. Maybe I'm all wet here, but it seems that we have material in the lede of an article that directly contradicts the sources. What's the best way to address this? RFC? third opinion? DRN? Some other notice board? BTW, I haven't asked anywhere else, you are the first stop.

Thanks for taking a look. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, seeing no response I'll look elsewhere for assistance. Thanks! Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

AN

You and Halfhat edited the page at the same time and you missed his comment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Or this will happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you handle this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion on User:Retartist/hall of infamy

• User:Retartist/hall of infamy

One of the SPAs in question made his own copy of WP:AN#Nip Gamergate in the bud in his userspace, I stumbled across it while googling for "gamergate wikipedia" to see how the outside world was discussing our coverage. Since you closed it I figured I'd ask what you thought of this. I considered going to MfD, but would it be considered a copyvio (thus speedy-eligible), since the attribution history of all the editor's comments are lost, seeing how it was a cut n paste job? Tarc (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Retartist is hardly a single-purpose account. Your objections are otherwise not very serious. Comments are signed and thus no real attribution issue exists. Not even sure if WP:POLEMIC would apply here since it is an archive of the entire discussion. I do notice you have said naught to the user you are attacking here, though. Why not raise your concerns with the user first before coming here?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That page should not exist because the thread will remain in the WP:AN archives. Its existence is polemic because of the use of the page title and should be deleted. And Retartist has done nothing on Wikipedia in the past two months except attempt to Wiki-litigate Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

_{Would be nice to notify me.} Relevant discussion should go here. Can you also stop referring to me as a spa, it is unwarranted and completely false. Retartist (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Images

I agree that Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014 version 2.jpg could be deleted for the purpose illustrated with a template on the file, but believe Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014.jpg should be kept and have given my reason at the file. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't to read my reason or message - I've asked an admin to delete Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014.jpg so I can re-upload under the proper section. If you can, feel free to delete Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014 version 2.jpg. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want to re-upload? If you want to change the image description, just edit it normally. Or you can re-upload with the upload wizard over the old one, without having it deleted first. But whatever new description you put it, I'm afraid it won't solve the WP:NFCC problem. She's a living person, so a new free picture of her could always be created. I really wonder why so many people miss the meaning of the second verb in that clause: "free image exists or could be created". Don't worry, you're not the first, nor will be the last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded it under the wrong source and copyright information. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)