Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 21:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I noticed you put in a deletion tag for File:Chelodina alanrixi.jpg my main concern on this is that this is the second time this has been discussed in several weeks. The image is copied from the original description of the species, it is a drawing of the holotype which also happens to be the only specimen of the species. Gaining access to it for the sole purpose of getting a picture is likely impossible, as museums do not give access to holotypes without justified research cause. The specimen is too valuable. Anyway this was discussed several weeks back and resolved I had thought. Faendalimastalk14:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The tag you place has been removed by a non-involved admin. Its a shame you yourself didnt review the file/rationale before placing the CSD tag on it again. Regards ZooPro09:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this, I appreciate it. We will probably continue to disagree about the relative merits of Prod versus AfD in a case like this. I do hope that if you re-read my comments on the AfD page, separating them from the shriller notes added by some of the others, you will realize they were pretty civil and to the point. They were not comments "on the nominator", but on the process, which I feel is absolutely legitimate. I was not offended, but irritated, simply by the fact that you opted to undo an action of mine which I think would have constituted a perfectly clean, efficient and process-conforming solution to the issue, and this caused me and others extra work in unnecessarily having to re-argue the case again on the AfD page. As for the advantages and disadvantages of AfD vis-a-vis Prod, I don't think that at a time when many AfDs end up relisted for lack of participation, and AfDs could easily be derailed by small numbers of well-meaning but ill-informed voters, unnecessarily sending an article that way is not as advisable as you seem to think it is. As for the danger of a Prod being silently removed, that is always an issue with any Prod; if we went by that logic, we should never use Prod for anything at all. A Prod always depends on a calculation of probabilities: if nobody objects, it's the least energy-consuming way by far; if somebody does object, it just takes a bit more time but still doesn't consume more energy than an immediate AfD. In this case I saw no reason to expect this would be different. Of the two other points in favour of AfD you mention, I don't find the one about the "expected" Snow close convincing. In my experience, Snow deletes are exceedingly rare and procedurally frowned upon, and the only reason it happened now was because the drama escalated the way it did, so I really don't see how anybody should have "known" the "odds were good" for one. Finally, as for the G4-safety of this result, I see no particularly strong reason to expect that situation should arise, and even if it did there's no reason to expect we couldn't handle it efficiently through normal methods. This is normally a well-behaved editing area that reasonable and well-informed people have well under control. And even assuming the scenario that the Prod had gone through, the page were recreated and we'd be forced to re-run an AfD, we'd still not end up expending more procedural energy than we did now, so I don't see the advantage. Fut.Perf.☼18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you block this ipsock? Echigo mole instructs another user how to ipsock/wikihound in this diff [1] and then trolls on AGK's talk page.[2] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Premature closing of MathSci's RfE against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?
Your proposal is both interesting and creative. I've asked a clarifying question. I may change my comment to agree with yours. Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Hiking in Kosovo#Move discussions needed for the place names (Serbian vs. Albanian)? where I mentioned your name. I wonder if the topic of place names in Kosovo has received prior discussion anywhere. This article came to my attention because there was an SPI about it -- an IP was reverting the piped names. Incidentally this article was newly created on 24 February 2013 by a brand-new editor, already containing the piped geographic names. Presumably the article creator favors the Albanian side. They have not edited since. Rather than push any sock inquiries further, I'm more interested in seeing if any agreement can be found about the names. I know, this is optimistic. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If you prefer I can upload an identical copy of the image, you can bring it up with a files for deletion request, and you can lose in the face of overwhelming community support. I'm alright with that, so is that what you would prefer? -Kai445 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
We don't use non-free images redundantly in general overview articles in which they appear only as part of a list or table, when they are already used also in a dedicated detail article. The overview "history" article does not contain enough of analytical commentary about the details of the design to justify an exception from this rule. Fut.Perf.☼18:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
"The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis." I suppose the table would be fine with an empty spot, as the PS4 currently sits and nobody is going crazy about it, but in the case of the PS4 there has been absolutely no release of the design. With the Xbox One, we are basically left with promo materials only at this point. I think the table is much more visually appealing with the design of the console displayed, and believe the article benefits from its use. I am open to being convinced the other way, however. -Kai445 (talk)
Not quite sure what is keeping you back. This link should take you to an editable page at the location you want. Or is it that you want to move an existing draft to that location? Fut.Perf.☼21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
a question regardin permanent topic ban
I'm not good at the wikipolicy mumbo-jumbo, if you'd excuse my language. I've been "ïndeffinetly banned from editing topics on Lithuanian"(and other Eastern European) place names, sadly it was main workfield, and it is sad for me to see referenced parts about linguistics of some articles to go by vandals, and do not have ability to change that.
And this is the question - is there a possibility to appeal to lift such sanctions as made by the admin user:Sandstein who at the hearings said he'll close the case and throw away the key. Context EEML and the following disputes. I'm asking for advice since we've been editing several articles together. Thank you in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a procedure for appeals outlined at the top of the WP:AE page, which is probably the best way to go. However, I would advise that you should probably rethink the reasons you wish to bring forward for your appeal. From what you say here, it sounds as if you wanted to simply go back to editing the way you did before, which will probably not be very convincing. Fut.Perf.☼08:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I've learned my lessons. It might be, that i did overstepped some lines, but indefinite ban is also not so good, because after that most of Lithuanian editors simply left Wikipedia for good.
I have fixed the rationale. Please remove the tag and image for deletion. There are no free images of vicious and no other fair use alternatives for his booking photo doesn't fully illustrate him as a musician, it illustrates him as a criminal (which is disputed). The mugshot is good for the section on Spungen's death, but not for an infobox. He was never proven guilty as a murder. He was a musician. --Mick man34 (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, there were three non-free images showing him performing on stage when I last looked. That's clearly too much. One would be okay. If you want to use File:SidViciousSexPistols.jpg, then the others should go. I have removed File:Vicious-white-kids.jpg (which didn't have a rationale for that article anyway), and I'd also ask you to remove File:ViciousRottenSF.jpg, whose rationale is extremely poor. Currently the rationale claims it's used in order to show "that the sex pistols broke up in San Francisco". That can never be a valid reason. We never ever use non-free images in order to show that something happened. For that purpose, we use verbal descriptions and reliable sources. The only valid reason for using a non-free image is to demonstrate how something happened, supporting some point where a mere verbal description would not be able to make something adequately understood. Now, if the article contained some specific and well-sourced commentary about the concrete visual details of that performance (for instance, how Johnnie Rotten remained in memory for making particularly silly faces while singing that night?), the image might be justifiable, but without that, I don't see a justification. Fut.Perf.☼16:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Well Vicious and Rotten in San Francisco is needed. No other images on here depict him with the pistols. Vicious White Kids is for that article only. One is needed for the infobox. Also, Vicious and Rotten image was up for deletion and was shot down already --Mick man34 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have quite ignored the point I made. Please re-read what I wrote just above here, so I don't have to repeat myself. Fut.Perf.☼11:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
As for this, it's clear that the user is a newbie and does not how to edit at en:WP, but I do not understand your edit summery. What made you think the newbie's posts were "tendentious nonsense"? Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Uhm... what made you think they were not tendentious nonsense? I'm going to keep enforcing a no-nonsense, zero tolerance approach to Japanese nationalist denialism propaganda on that page, just the same as I'd enforce a zero tolerance approach to Holocaust denial or Armenian genocide denial on pages related to those issues. Fut.Perf.☼16:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I thought you could have moved the newbie's request to the bottom as the request had what the newbie thought as RS. And you could have suggested learning more on WP on his/her talk page. If you had done so, s/he would not have edited the article talk page on May 31. You may think I am too nationalistic, but I think there are still a lot to verify on the issue. I think you've seen this request. Is the story acceptable to you? It is not to me. See this. In the pdf, her father was alive when she came home, but in the video the parents were dead. Usually people correctly remember things happened when they were young. The woman's story is dubious to me., but the testimony has been accepted as a fact in the world and I think this kind of mistakes/Korean propaganda should be corrected. Am I wrong? Oda Mari (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. That is my personal/private view on the matter. I have no intention of reflecting it at WP without RS and I know what OR is. If I was such an editor, I would have been indef. blocked by YOU years ago. You know that. I'd like to point out that it's not right to think that Koreans claims are always right and Japanese claims are always wrong on this matter. Oda Mari (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey thanks, it's appreciated! Actually, when I wrote that one I just pilfered some stuff I had once researched for a student termpaper back at university. But it was fun writing it. :-) Fut.Perf.☼16:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I passed this image of Sid Vicious at Wikicommons since it is supposedly from the Chicago Art Department's flickr account. (if you check the author) Just notifying you since I saw you DR'ed a few other obvious flickrwashes of Sid Vicious. I think its OK but when an institute licenses an image freely, I have to assume they have the copyright over the image. The date 1978 by the uploader is arbitrary but it would be the late 1970's I suppose since this person died in 1979. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that you delete lots of images per WP:CSD#F7 without using any DI tag, so maybe you can answer this question. File:Weatherford, Texas Pythian Home walkway.jpg has a copyright tag which states that this is a 2D depiction of a "proposed building or architectural work" but the fair use rationale says that the building was constructed in 1909. I would say that this means that the copyright tag is blatantly wrong, so do you think that this would qualify for immediate deletion? I generally try to avoid {{db-f7}} but use {{subst:rfu}} instead because I think that it is a bit unclear exactly when you can use the faster tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sex Pistols Amsterdam
Please remove the deletion tag. Clikc the permission link. It clearly states that this file may be used. Why not also nominate the other files from the Netherlands Archive with the Sex Pistols if you believe this one isn't free??? Oh yeah that's right, you just hate me and want to bully me --Mick man34 (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the licensing statement in [7] does not apply to all images on that website, but talks about just one collection among the archive's holding (produced by the news agency Anefo). When you follow the link inside that statement, you are led to a search collection of the images it applies to [8], and if you follow any of those search results, e.g. [9], you will see that the image is clearly marked with "Auteursrechthebbende: Nationaal Archief, CC-BY-SA" on the right of the page. The Sex Pistols image at [10] is from a different collection and by a different author, and I'm not seeing any such CC-BY-SA tag on its page. If there is one and I've missed it, please point out where it can be found. Fut.Perf.☼10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
One honest query
Given the nature of Darkness Shines' biased writing and injudiciousness shown while picking article titles, should he have the auto-patrolled right? at least in the next few months? I don't he merits that kind of "trust" any more. It's no secret that he has grave POV issues. He has not been a helpful contributor for a long time esp. in context of Islamic topics or India-Pakistan subjects.
P.S. This comment is in no way an attempt to justify any contraventions or misbehaviour I might have evinced when faced with odious innuendos. People tend to misconstrue everything I say these-days. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)07:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so you still don't see what's wrong with taking a source that speaks of government involvement in one specific incidents, and use that to support a claim that government involvement is an essential property of all incidents covered in the article? There's not much non-snarky I could possibly say about that. Fut.Perf.☼22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so you are still ignoring the fact that you are wrong and are covering that up by attacking me. The source does not mention just one pogram, go read it if you think I have misquoted it on the talk page, till you do do not even bother to try and talk to me as you will be ignored. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I read it. The source mentions other pogroms, but it mentions government involvement in relation to only one of them. And even if it did what you claimed it does, does it claim that the government has been involved in every such incident that your article covers? No, of course not. Was your lead sentence claiming that it was involved with all such incidents? Yes, evidently it was. Therefore, was your lead sentence supported by your source? No, of course it was not. Fut.Perf.☼22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Ghaznavids#flag. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Let me repeat that I am inclined to treat this as a BLP issue. Unless I see substantial objections against that view from an independent perspective, I'll enforce it as such, with blocks or protections if necessary. Fut.Perf.☼16:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
And I will gladly take action for abuse of tools, and might I add you shouldn't engage in personal attacks against myself saying that it is an attack image, for it is making a pretty big accusation against myself. Do it again, and that could be dealt with. Russavia (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Wanna give it a go? Oh, and thanks a lot for the WP:AGF. Always nice to see. I would expect better from an admin on this project...really. Russavia (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
For the time being, I will remove the image again. Since it's only a draft, it ought not to make any significant difference to you anyway. If you reinsert it, I shall use protection invoking WP:BLP to enforce it, until such time as a consensus has been clarified either way, so you might consider saving yourself the trouble of trying. Fut.Perf.☼16:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, given that you have not discussed anything with me personally, and have only acted in a bombastic "respect my authoritah" way, I will kindly ask you to observe WP:BRD. Also, it should be noted that the article is noindexed, so search engines don't pick it up (I do it with most pages of mine in userspace); so there is no problem there. Just chill out a bit, right. Russavia (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have now taken JW's talk page off my watchlist, so I would mind you to discuss it with me here in a civil way and with an open mind. Would you like to do that? Russavia (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I've pretty much said what I had to say and would not particularly like to have to repeat myself, but if you have anything new to add, I'm all ears. Let me first ask you outright: did you contact the painter before he made that picture, and whose idea was it originally to use a picture of Wales for this article, yours or his? Fut.Perf.☼16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask you a question. You stated: "But it certainly smells of an intended jibe on the part of the editor, given their prior history with Jimbo". Can you please explain what prior history with Jimbo you talk about? Care to explain that? Russavia (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no desire to go through all your edits on Jimbo's talk page and all your interactions on Commons (not the kind of stuff I usually follow), but if Jimbo says he regards it as your "latest viciousness", I have no grounds for doubting that he has some reason for seeing your relationship as strained. Fut.Perf.☼17:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you should, because Jimbo saying this is "viciousness" on my part is ridiculous. Go have a look at our interactions, and point out where the viciousness is. I can show you the discussion which has lead to him to claim I am engaging in viciousness against him. Would you like to see where? Russavia (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, I don't think I care very much. I've answered your question, would you now kindly answer mine? Fut.Perf.☼17:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Well you obviously do care enough, because you are using the tools in order to do what it is you want to do. But you don't care enough to see some facts? Is this how broken English Wikipedia is? My god! Russavia (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, I guess that makes sense at this point. I'd been hoping it wouldn't have to come this far somehow. Fut.Perf.☼21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind unprotecting the userspace article now. There's no need for it to have continued protection. Russavia (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really remember now. It was a messy situation with many accounts making apparently similar tendentious edits over a longish period, and I really don't remember which other account or IPs I had in mind as the sockmaster for this one. Fut.Perf.☼20:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks anyways. It doesn't particularly matter, but I figured I'd link them up if the connection were known. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Request for input in drafting potential guidelines
Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Mail
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The claim that I somehow have an ongoing dispute with Mrt is ridiculous. I do consider myself "involved" with his main opponent though, as I had the bad luck that Darkness Shines at some point chose to meddle in a content dispute I had with another, unrelated editor some time ago. This is the only reason I have not also sanctioned Darkness Shines – who I otherwise consider at least equally to blame for this whole situation.
Would you mind filing an AE Case against Darkness Shines? Or would you mind just banning him since that dispute you had with DS is past and WP:INVOLVED is not eternally valid in such cases. Let me put it this way, I think you're as uninvolved with DS as you're with me. You know that I didn't misrepresent anything. That edit was well-sourced, you banned me based on the probable miscalculation of the weight of a "deposition" in a good-faith edit. You really ought to block him too. With the absence of any other editor, the article's are turning into his personal fiefdom. Mr T(Talk?)13:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello FP. Your topic ban of User:SummerRat has been mentioned in this AE discussion. Since an admin is now proposing to close this AE complaint with bans of User:Oda Mari and User:Lvhis your input would be helpful. It's hard for me to disagree with the additional bans but I'm not too familiar with the background of this case, and am wondering if there is enough rationale provided. If you are familiar with all three editors then perhaps you have an opinion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Abkhazia issues
Hi! Could you take a look at the discussion here? Since the discussion is going nowhere, 3rr report has been ignored and it has already spilled into insults at my talk, I'm kind of at a loss what to do now. Alæxis¿question?19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Future Perfect at Sunrise, dein bekannter Feind hat gerade auf Commons massivst mittels multi-IP zugeschlagen. Weit über 100 Edits mussten revertiert und zudem versteckt werden. Angesichts dieser Drohung in der Edit-Summary[13][14], die ich aus forensischen Gründen momentan noch so belassen habe, solltest du event. rechtliche Schritte erwägen (oder entsprechenden Support bei WMF einholen). --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Ja, danke für den Hinweis, auf anderen Wikis ist er auch wieder unterwegs. Wahrscheinlich muss ich wirklich mal anfangen, solche Links systematisch zu sammeln. Lass deshalb ruhig mal ein paar davon offen. Fut.Perf.☼21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Fut.perf would you please reconsider your ban? Please allow me to explain my position. And if it's not too much would you explicate your rationale behind imposing the ban? So that I may correct my editing pattern and in the future avoid getting banned again over similar concerns? I really want to have a discussion. I really do. I think the ban should not seem punitive in nature. I am not saying it seems punitive now but yeah I admit I was upset for quite some time over this ban, now, I think, I am not so upset any more I have managed to take it in. So, would you help me understand the faults? Mr T(Talk?)07:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I have made my concerns about your editing very clear, several times, both in explaining the ban and previously when I warned you. Others have done the same. Your repeated claims that you don't understand these reasons don't make the situation better. You have been editing tendentiously, and if you are unable to recognize how and why your edits have been tendentious, then that's unfortunately only one more reason to keep you restricted from editing in this area. Fut.Perf.☼10:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
We must agree that while talking about DUE and UNDUE weight we are essentially treading on the domain of personal opinions and the subjects I volunteer to edit are already very emotive and controversial, hence it is very hard to not let the decisions be clouded by emotion. Believe me I am telling you I, in good-faith, miscalculated the weight of that statement of the witness.
That article was, and still is, about a highly emotive topic. It is fairly likely that people will see tendentiousness in almost every change in the content. And it's very hard for any editor to assess the neutrality of the edits he or others perform. In this scenario would you be kind enough to reconsider your ban? Why are you precluding the possibility of good faith on my part?
Okay, I am going to explain the issue here as I see it (pardon my candour),
The political articles I recently edited are Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence, Godhra train burning, etc. When I glanced over the edits in these articles and proposals/demands on their talks, I learnt that bias is absolutely rife in those pages and that's why I thought the bar for meeting "tendentious editing" must be very, very high and I saw that sanctions are enforced sparingly and leniently. Also when I, as a beginner, saw some of the editors do it again and again with impunity, it only reinforced my idea that the leniency is prevalent in these article. The applicability of guidelines became blurry because of the inaction, leniency of some admins. You cannot really blame me for following suit especially because those before me were not banned at the right time for committing worse contraventions. I have been watching this cat-and-mouse game for quite some time and now when I perform an edit, that is perhaps a tendentious edit, I am blocked banned right-away. The thing is I never learnt what actually was inside the periphery of neutrality because of the lack of intervention and sometimes even acquiescence from the admins, you know? Please believe me, I am still learning how to navigate these murky waters. This ban is only making it even more confusing because I just cannot intellectualize the disparity I am seeing.
I am not saying others' misconduct or violation excuse my own. All I am saying is please understand my predicament and give me a chance. I am a reasonable guy and I am amenable to any well-founded, logical discussion. In fact you yourself may counsel me on how to avoid being perceived as a biased editor. I encourage you to trout me whenever you feel I am over-stepping any guideline. But please lift the ban and let me edit those articles, I promise I will try to be as neutral as humanly possible. Mr T(Talk?)14:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Mrt, you wouldn't know neutral if it hit you in the face. Worse, your excitability is exactly the sort of thing that turns the articled to which you refer into emotive messes. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow what a constructive and informative reply, I am enlightened. This sort of commentary is what bothers me. Why do you pass judgements on me? I disagree with you but does that give you the right to vilify me this way? Why do you assume bad faith? Mr T(Talk?)14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Sitush, i know it sounds very cool, but you do realise that making snide remarks can never improve the situation? (refering to your first sentence) Even if you don't want to hear out Mrt anymore, you can ignore or remain silent, or best, provide constructive criticism. Anir1uph | talk | contrib15:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Anir, my remarks may have been blunt but they were not snide. The situation will be improved by Mrt's absence from the topic area. They've had the constructive criticism previously and yet continue even now to argue the toss. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No sir, the remarks were pretty snide. You alluded to a disability.
"The situation will be improved by Mrt's absence from the topic area" - again a big claim and I feel it was not needed. Mr T(Talk?)17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I was neither aware of an allusion nor aware that you have a disability. Nor does a disability somehow exempt you from displays of tendentiousness and POV that continue despite numerous attempts to explain the problems. For esample, there are autistic contributors who have been blocked because the unfortunate effect of their health on their editing was considered to be a net negative. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, can I have an uninterrupted discussion with FPAS if you don't mind? I don't think your comments are needed here. Mr T(Talk?)18:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Mrt, tendentious editing is not a matter of a single edit. A single edit isn't tendentious, as tendentiousness is a pattern. If you're debating the classification of a single edit, then you clearly don't understand Fut.Perf's reasoning. In addition, there is no differing set of bars for actions. If you're looking for a "periphery" of neutrality, you clearly don't understand what neutrality is. Editing neutrally means you're not trying to fit a certain point of view in. CMD (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you have fully understood my reasoning. "A single edit isn't tendentious, as tendentiousness is a pattern" - I am saying that pattern either doesn't exist or exists in everywhere in those articles. I am using tendentious as in "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it". I am not saying that I am tendentious I am saying that edit could be perceived as tendentious. "If you're looking for a "periphery" of neutrality" - I am not but it's not a dot either. And you do know that "neutrality" is a very complicated issue, right? I am looking for a range, if you will. Mr T(Talk?)17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Tendentiousness isn't a pattern in articles, it's a pattern of an editor's actions. Your interpretation of it as "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it" is incorrect, many editors do this without tendentious editing. Again, a single edit isn't perceived as tendentious, a pattern is tendentious. Neutrality as a principle isn't complicated at all. There's no "range" of neutrality, there's neutrality and trying to push a POV, whether subtly or overtly. If you feel you can't edit a subject neutrally, you shouldn't edit it. CMD (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me but from your comment it seems that any form of disagreement is a sign of tendentiousness. If think that "expressing a particular opinion or point of view, especially when many disagree with it" can be done without tendentious intentions then you actually agree with me. "There's no "range" of neutrality" - I am saying that since absolute neutrality is pretty hard to attain and arguably impossible, there is a range of ways we can edit articles without always breaching the NPOV-policy. If you don't concur, then, hey, let's agree to disagree. Mr T(Talk?)18:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't see how my comment can be interpreted the way you are interpreting it. You're still completely misunderstanding tendentiousness. It's not about intentions; one doesn't usually aim to be tendentious. It's a pattern that emerges from actions. Whether or not absolute neutrality is impossible, if you're looking for the boundaries of neutrality, then you're very clearly not editing in a neutral manner. What it implies, and what other editors will see, is just a way to try and get a certain POV presented as prominently as possible (hence Sitush's comment above). Perhaps instead of being argumentative with those trying to advise you (an attitude which helps you not at all), you should try to take a break and think upon all the issues raised by multiple editors; try and see the issue from other sides rather than just arguing it from yours. Good luck, CMD (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Cmd is right, tendentiousness isnt about intentions, it isnt even about right or wrong, it is about what fellow editors perceive an editors editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Mt. T, FuP may not like the use of his page for this would you copy this discussion to your talk page leaving a talk back at each participant's page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
"It's a pattern that emerges from actions." - so what? One may perceive many patterns in my editing. Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as POV disruption itself? I try to balance articles that have certain types of biases. Why is that a bad thing? My point is when fellow editors themselves are sensitive to an emotional subject they can perceive any editor's editing as tendentious. It's not that hard to grasp, is it? The conversation should focus on how that user's tendencies are causing disruption. Many keep on bringing up how I was advised about my tendentiousness (before ban? where?) and I was argumentative to the ones trying to advise me. Well just requesting someone to substantiate something which they alleged is not necessarily a sign of argumentativeness. Perhaps, CMD will disagree on this too. Allegations were levelled against me but nowhere were they elucidated or substantiated. Mr T(Talk?)06:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
When you uploaded File:The_Accuracy_International_AS-50.jpg here on en-wp in January, you declared it as non-free, and I deleted it on that basis, as it clearly didn't meet the non-replaceability criterion of our WP:NFCC rules. You also said you had "permission" from the rights holder, but according to what you said that was just a permission for use here on Wikipedia, and not a fully free license for free re-use elsewhere, so it wasn't sufficient for us. For the other file, en:File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg, an OTRS statement was submitted when it was re-uploaded by User:Francis Flinch some time later, both here and on Commons (I suppose that was also you, under a different account name?). At that time, I deleted it here simply because it was redundant to the copy on Commons, but before that happened, an OTRS volunteer (User:VernoWhitney) had noted that the OTRS statement was not yet sufficient, and that's also the reason cited by the deleting admin on Commons (commons:User:HJ Mitchell). I can't say what in the OTRS statement was problematic, as I don't myself have access to that correspondence, but I'd expect the OTRS volunteers should have explained it to you at the time. Probably the statement didn't contain clear enough evidence that the permission was meant to cover free re-use for all purposes and not just use on Wikipedia. Fut.Perf.☼20:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I am by no means a copyright expert and will not quickly judge any editor regarding that subject, but in defence of User:Twobells I can assure you that Twobells did not spoof my account. I just tried to help. It is not easy for a normal editor (like me) to judge what is appropriate or not regarding OTRS and uploading such information correctly, so please lets assume good faith instead of jumping to all kinds of exciting assumptions and conclusions.--Francis Flinch (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
this editor has been particularly hostile for no good reason as well as obviously paranoid in their suggestion that I used a sock puppet with absolutely no evidence and deleted images that were supplied on the condition they would be free and in the public domain, I stated the images were for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere, Future Perfect has shown bad faith and deleted images that took me considerable time and effort to obtain. I have little experience with uploading images and gauging which is the correct template to use so it seems I was penalised for that inexperience, hardly the sort of behaviour that Wikipedia professes to deplore in its guidelines. I think I deserve an apology for your baseless accusations. Twobells (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not "paranoid", and I didn't accuse you of anything – I was just trying to make sense of the situation that you came here ostensibly as the uploader of these images while technically they had been uploaded by another account, so naturally my guess was that both accounts were the same person. I was simply asking you about that. If it wasn't the case, no problem. As for the images, I think I gave you a clear and polite explanation about what happened with them, right above here. What in all of this you feel to be "hostile", I'm sorry but I really have no idea. Fut.Perf.☼08:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for weighing in on the AE case against Bobby fletcher (who now seems to be editing while logged off[15][16]). During that case, User:STSC arose from a six-month hibernation to defend Bobby fletcher[17]. User then started advocating for the same content on Tiananmen Square[18], and making personal attacks at Talk:Falungong[19]. I see from his redacted talk page history that you have topic banned this user before over his edits on the East China Sea controversy, so I wanted to get your advice. Should I just give him some rope?—Zujine|talk13:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there evidence that links the IP to Bobby fletcher? If that were the case, we'd have to also deal with the edit-warring on Tiananmen. STSC somehow vaguely rings a bell; I'll have a look at his edits. Fut.Perf.☼14:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
On Tiananmen Square, there are two IPs from the island of Tonga that have been edit warring to include the US embassy cables:[20][21] I'm not sure a checkuser would connect the IPs to Bobby fletcher, but the content and edit summaries used are virtually identical. Compare Bobby fletcher's edit summary here to the summaries posted by 175.176.145.134[22][23]. "Feel free to edit but not remove, as deleting reliable source of fact is POV." —Zujine|talk15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
IP 91.155.236.125 posting fringe theories on a number of articles, again.
About three weeks ago, after blocking the IP for the second time in two days for posting fringe theories on various articles you wrote"If you resume pushing for your favourite fringe opinions, you will be excluded from our project for good" on the IP's talk page. Well, the IP is at it again, clearly showing that he/she didn't learn anything from his/her blocks. Thomas.W (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Istanbul climate chart - annual precipitation
Hi.
The Turkish State Meteorological Service always updates the annual precipitation data for Turkish cities (including in this case Istanbul). The data reflects the year 2012. The source is already in the climate box. The previous user changed it without explanation. I was just reverting that. If you do not object, I will restore th previous data reflecting the annual precipitation data of the city of Istanbul for the year 2012. But before that, I would like your response.
Did you check the data in the article against that in the source? I did, and it appeared to be showing the data given by the other editor, not that you reverted back to. These climate data are very often the object of sneaky vandalism, which can be quite difficult to catch; that's why I asked both of you to be careful and always check before making changes. Fut.Perf.☼09:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Both sources are from the Turkish State Meteorological Service, and I have checked both. The date I reverted to was not updated for the year 2012. I woud like to update the annual precipitatıon data of the city of Istanbul given by the Turkish State Meteorological Service for the year 2012. Saguamundi (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you have a source for that, you're welcome. But the source that is currently cited contained the other set of figures; do you agree with that now? Also, the two sets of figures differed so much from each other that the difference could impossibly be just the kind of shift in average values that results from the factoring-in of the data of one more year, so most likely the set you reverted back to was simply wrong. Fut.Perf.☼09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Both sources from the Turkish State Meteorological Service, are already present in the climate section as well as at the bottom of the climate chart numbered [85] and [89] respectively. They are in Turkish (with the content having been translated into English for Wikipedia readers), but are from this organization, and thus authoritative. I was using the source from the Turkish State Meteorological Service while reverting – without any explanation and citing it, causing you understandably to question. I apologize. Updating annual precipitation data, as well as other climate data, annually, is a normal practice of state meteorological organizations, and which the Turkish State Meteorological Service does for the cities each year. The data I reverted to, encompasses the whole city of Istanbul. The differences in the annual precipitation data of the city of Istanbul, from one year to the next are very minimal, and they are also quite minimal over the long term, regardless of the dramatic differences in precipitation each year, as it is shown in the source [89]. If you agree, I would like to update it. Thanks. Saguamundi (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain why there are still these two seemingly quite disparate sets of figures, both apparently from the same agency, the one [24] having 100.9, 80.9, 69.6 etc., and the other [25] having 83.4, 65.5, 60.2 etc.? Apparently the first was measured between 1970 and 2010, the second between 1960 and 2012, but that still won't explain how the figures in the one set could be consistently about 10-15% higher than those in the other. Fut.Perf.☼12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Kaveh Farrokh
A self-published website by an amateur researcher? you must be joking right? he is one of the best Iranian historians, look on his awards and recognition, only people that do not know anything about him would call him a amateur, maybe you should research about him before saying such things. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Last time I looked, Farrokh was some guy who worked (in some non-research job) at some college in the US. He wrote three books for "Osprey Publishing", a publisher specialized on popularized illustrated pamphlets for militaria enthusiasts (i.e. not serious historical works). The page you quoted is his private, self-published website. The article you quoted is not even by Forrokh himself, but a mirror of an article by a guy called Suren-Pahlav, who became notorious on Wikipedia as a source of massively low-quality and usually plagiarized or copyright-violating material some years ago, so much so that his website ("CAIS") had to be blacklisted here. Anything written by him about Surena is most certainly not reliable. If I remember correctly, Farrokh himself in his "Shadows in the Desert" book also mentions the statue somewhere, but does not claim it represents Surena. As we established a year or two ago on the talkpage of that article, no serious publication in the reliable historical or archaeological literature does this; the only link between the statue and Surena is a meme that's being proliferated by unreliable lay authors on various websites. Fut.Perf.☼10:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Some of my misunderstood edits
Hi, I want to thank you for clarifying and explaining my edit on the article of Hagia Sophia and would like to ask if you also would like to check my explanation concerning "Ottoman statistics of 1910" at [26], where I argued that they contradict other Ottoman official censuses and that the census of 1910 is likely a fabrication. The discussion was with the same users and I failed to explain it to them properly. Could you take a look at this when you have the time.
Furthermore could you have a look at this (I once again failed to explain it): [27]
because my point was that if in fact 90% of the Armenians in Erzurum would have been killed in 1895 then the number of dead should be 1 million killed in Erzurum alone, which is as high as the total death count during the entire Armenian Genocide.
Also I have a question about this edit [28], since it changes the order of the comments, making it more difficult for the reader when, what was written.
Finally, if you are willing, could you look at Talk:Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21), because this is where it all began and I think the discussion was similar to the Hagia Sophia column dispute. An important issue was the lowering of casualties from 6,000 to 35.
I'm sorry for bothering you with such a long request.
Ya I know, me asking you for a favour. I have been working on trying to fix what I perceive as the issues with the 2002 Gujarat violence article. I would like you to look over the work done so far and perhaps offer some pointers, because believe it or not I know you're a good editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of two pictures used in article on Dell PE VRTX
Hi,
You deleted two pictures I recently places under 'fair use policy':
Normally a bot that removes someones pages/files sends a message to the Talk page of the one who uploaded the file/picture and or when he nominates it for (speedy) deletion. Out of courtesy that does seem to be the thing to do.
But I didn't receive anything apart from a single line about 'deletion log' but without any details on what, where and why deleted on that.
(And then another bot removed the references to the (not longer existing) files in the article on Dell PE VRTX and even though I have this article on my Watchlist these changes didn't show up: only when I look at the History of the page I do see the changes made: but that only when I'm already checking on the page where the changes were made.
I don't know if you and Carnildo (or his bot: ImageRemovalBot) are 'linked'. As I don't see any link between you and him I wrote him seperatly about the lack of 'showing on my watchlist': but maybe you have the answer on the questions I asked him. (see Carnildo's talk page for my questions to him. Thanks Tonkie (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
ImageRemovalBot just mechanically checks what files were recently deleted and then removes references to them from articles; as far as I know it does not do notifications. Notifications are usually done when a file is "tagged" as problematic, and thereby earmarked for deletion some days later. In the present case, however, the images were so obviously inappropriate that they fell under a criterion for immediate speedy deletion (WP:CSD#F7: the files were falsely labelled as "historic photographs" and falsely described as intended "for visual identification of the object of the article. The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work", both of which was obviously wrong; they were also obviously replaceable with free images that could be created. Under such circumstances, notifications are not required. Fut.Perf.☼05:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
An explanation in the deletion log is "re-deleting incubated version". The deletion log for the incubated article shows, "deleted page Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Omar Todd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination))". The closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) states, "The result was delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)". So the closing doesn't mention the incubated article. Why did you not just delete the article in mainspace, which was the subject of the AfD? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The way I read the AfD, it was basically for both versions of the page, though I'm aware that was procedurally a bit IAR. As you said yourself, there does not seem to be a clear procedural guideline for this kind of situation. But all the discussion in the AfD appeared to apply equally to both versions. Especially in light of the repeated recreations and the previous AfD results, the overall notability concerns must be understood as being about the topic as such, not just about one specific version of its coverage. Fut.Perf.☼05:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no way this article ever suitable for the incubator in the first place; it was only incubated because of an oversight by the closing admin at the last DRV and I couldn't be bothered to pursue it. The very fact that this has been to AfD 3 times and DRV once (and been deleted every time) is a firm marker that this article is not for the incubator. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In this diff, in response to my considered analysis requesting incubation, you characterize the request as "badgering". The next step in the process was DRV. The DRV closing rejected your desire to create an AfD. Just what is the purpose of an AfD where there is agreement that the article should not be in mainspace? It is not to remove the article from mainspace, so there has to be something more. What I am starting to see here is a desire to ban topics much as editors get banned. Part of your involvement here is to object to the close of the DRV, even though you don't identify a specific problem. Between the lines, you may be objecting that the incubator is used to research and improve articles, when as an admin you think you should have the right to ban topics from Wikipedia. This is consistent with the out-of-process G4 that was overturned at DRV. Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Your argument that previous deletions create a "firm marker" is not a policy or guideline-based argument, rather the Wikipedia policy is WP:CCC. Notability was not discussed at all at the 2nd AfD, and in the 3rd AfD I explicitly noted that I was not making a notability argument and that there was no need to do so. Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fut.Perf. We are a team of researchers studying editing dynamics around the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for users who have edited, discussed or acted in accordance with administrative rights and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. The project is approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under open access and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at interwikiresearch@gmail.com and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs.Pbilic (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Scythians.
What is wrong with the sources? so you are saying all the sources are not reliable? you kidding me? and also don't forget to take a look on the Khosrau I talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise and HistoryofIran, Please write your opinion about this consensus (Scythians): Here. Thanks. Zyma (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
What is wrong with the image? Its not tagged as a copyvio. Can you explain it there? If the IMAGE is a vio then fair enough, if its the caption then just change it.Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Basically all the recently uploaded images of Mansour are copyvios (or NFCC-violating non-free). I suppose you are referring to commons:File:Adly Mansour.jpg; this one has been nominated for deletion on Commons and the consensus is already very clear that it's a copyvio; the only reason it's not been deleted yet is a technical process matter. Fut.Perf.☼20:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to request that Wran gets blocked for repeated offensive behavior and persistently disruptive editing. Wran has a long history of pointy editing; they keep defending their unconstructive edits to the point of causing a major disruption. They recently violated 3RR [29] not because of some major content dispute but because they wanted to be allowed to violate the MOS. When I notified them [30] about their their misleading edit summaries, they rushed into changing the MOS itself [31]. Whenever I or others ask Wran to justify their edits, they repeatedly decline to do so and start trolling (repeating what I say, rarely adding anything of value to the conversation) [32][33][34][35][36], making personal attacks [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] (see also the tone they used in the past against other established editors who dared to ask Wran to justify their edits [44][45][46]) and frivolous accusations [47][48][49]. (See also their disorienting comments on talk-pages in which they were asked to give reasons for their unduly tampering with quoted/referenced material in violation of WP:INTEGRITY: i, ii.)
Since Wran arrived on Wikipedia they have employed almost every kind of trolling there is: edit warring, misuse of process (i.e., demanding that others find sources for Wran's own statements) [50][51], misplaced criticism (ranting about WP censorship after they have violated the BLP policy [52]), "correction" of things that are already in conformance with the Manual of Style and the basic rules of grammar [53][54][55], refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, playing up into flame wars, and making baseless accusations. Obviously, this is not because they are unaware of policy. All those tactics are nothing but a way to avoid scrutiny. It is of importance to note that Wran almost never provides citations for what they insert despite the fact that they are asked to do so [56][57]; exceptions include their employing of circular sourcing[58] (after I had removed an unsourced statement Wran restored it with a citation to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy for Smartphones and Mobile Devices, the content of which primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia) and their adding of a source which "proves" that the "the" is always part of title of the Iliad[59] (another cause for tendentious edit-warring involving five editors). Even if Wran were right in matters of content (which is not the case as I and others have tediously explained in several talk-pages), there should be no tolerance for their employing of trolling and harassment tactics. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about the closing
In regard to the closing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) and the deletion of the incubated article, an issue here is that you've made an out-of-process deletion that still needs WP:IAR support. Please bear with me here, below I will first reject your comment about notability in relation to the incubator, then I will open the door to an improved WP:IAR analysis, and conclude with a compromise request. I am concerned that you've mentioned "the overall notability concerns", as this tells me that you are not clear about why you deleted the incubated article. One-sided "notability concerns" do not open the door to reach into the incubator, and there is no such thing as a secret consensus. We have had an AfD with seven spa's, a drive-by !vote, informationectomy, referencectomy, WP:OUTING, three SPIs, and there is still a BLP issue to be reviewed for oversighting. You've commented on none of these things. Moving on, against this backdrop, there was a WP:IAR argument made during the AfD, and it was IMO an argument that had merit. It is not an easy argument, because it is an argument that Wikipedia, as a process made of people, has its limits. You have mentioned WP:IAR in your first response. Please explain your WP:IAR position in a way that I and others who read this discussion going forward will understand and know how to interpret it. If you are not prepared to make that argument, then I request that you restore to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Omar Todd (3rd nomination) the "== References ==" and "== Further reading ==" sections from the incubated article. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
We now know that of the seven spa's, five were one editor. The sixth openly identifies himself as a meatpuppet. Yet the proximate cause for the deletion of my work in the incubator is the seventh, the creator of the article. My compromise offer is reasonable. Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise,
In the course of auditing the protection logs, I notice that your protected several greek letters including: Digamma, San (letter), Koppa (letter), Stigma (letter), Sho (letter), Gamma, Upsilon, Phi, Chi (letter), Psi (letter). Since you didn't provide a link to an SPI in the log, I have no way of knowing if this sockmaster is still active or not. If not, would you consider lifting the protection? Even if they are, the edit rate is low enough that I believe pending changes is an appropriate level of protection. Regards, Crazynast09:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
These articles have been favorite targets of the WP:LTA/Wikinger vandal, who has been quite active vandalizing elsewhere on the project lately, so I would honestly prefer to keep them this way. As far as I'm aware, few of these articles have ever had any significant amount of non-vandal input from anon editors. Fut.Perf.☼09:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Someone has added an article for Omar Todd and I've suggested it for deletion. It's the fourth creation of Omar Todd article; previous articles have been (filmmaker), (producer) and (politician). I believe you deleted an Omar Todd article yesterday. Not sure how to avoid the spam but I thought I'd appeal to you with the fourth version. PixiePerilot (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, you can't "fix" those passages. The only clean way is to rewrite them from scratch. Having the old text there in front of you as a model will only prevent you from finding your own expressions. You need to read the contents in that source, understand them, think about them, then put the source away and, without thinking of its actual wording and without looking at it, express what you understood in your own words. The result will have an entirely different sentence structure and your own independent logical progression of ideas. If you find you can't do that, it means you haven't actually understood what the source was saying. This is how basic academic writing works. Fut.Perf.☼15:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, made it completely from scratch, but there are still some words that were used before because there are no other words than these, i have putted it on my space again so you can judge it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on. This is still the exact same sequence of sentences, the exact same structure, and many of the exact same expressions. Can you really not think of alternative ways of saying that person A had a problem with persons B and C possessing too much power, or which offices these two people had, or expressing the idea that A was not willing to leave actual power to those people but insisted on ruling himself? Good lord, I could easily spin off twenty different versions of saying these things in twenty different ways. Is independent writing really so difficult for you? In that case, you ought to consider whether a project whose purpose is to write a serious encyclopedic work really is the best place for you to use your talents, which appear to lie elsewhere. Fut.Perf.☼16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok forget it, i give up, since your English is so good and you know what to change could you do me a favor and use 2 minutes to correct what i did wrong? that would be nice. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't work on command. I already spent quite some time yesterday dealing with you, so perhaps you could muster some understanding if at some point I just want to spend the rest of the afternoon doing something else. I might still give it a hand later one, if and when I find the time. Fut.Perf.☼07:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Input
Hi FP and thanks for your 3rd party input into Scythians. Not to labour the point, but the fact i was trying to impress on my unimpressable friend, HoI, is that the Scythians, even in strictu sensu, spoke several different languages, but certainly appear to have had East Iranian as the common / dominant language and langauge of the rulership. Herodotus states that they spoke at least 7 languages, an impression maintained by secondary sources [61]. The whole mumbo-jumbo I was trying to write about their 'diversity' is that the Greeks just slapped this label on almost anyone, and was not a self-contained, clear-cute designation like Franks, Athenians or even Macedonians. Do you think some aspects of this are worthy of brief mention in the leded without prolonging / complicating it unneccesarily ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend to just treat those aspects in the body of the text. Correct or not, the tradition of representing the Scythians as essentially Iranian-speaking, without further qualifications, seems to be strong enough to create an "undue weight" problem if we were to push those quibbles into the lead. Why don't you first just create a well-written and well-sourced treatment of these aspects further down in the text, and then start thinking about how much (if anything) should be reflected in the summary? Fut.Perf.☼07:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a mess on ANI, so I will answer your question here. Yes, he "broke" the template. It was broken both here and here. What drew my attention in the first place was that the article I was looking at had an infobox that was displaying as a mutilated pile of wikicode and I couldn't see any error in the syntax. The two diffs are at ANI and the topic of my very first message to Hyacinth.—Kww(talk) 14:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Drawing a painting based off a copyrighted painting.
Nope, that would count as a "derivative work" of the original, so it could not be validly released under a free license. Fut.Perf.☼16:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Response to comment
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Drg55's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'd appreciate your input on the new Languages of Cyprus article (ideas for improvement/expansion) when you've got time and if it's something you're interested in. I'm asking 'cos I've seen you contribute to articles relating to language quite a bit. Thanks, — Lfdder (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good so far. Just as a quick first idea, we might find some more about the role of English in the freshly published Cyprus volume of Benjamin's "Varieties of English around the World" series (S. Buschfeld, 2013). Fut.Perf.☼13:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
As stated in the deletion summary: per WP:CSD#F7b. It was an image from a commercial agency source (AFP), and not itself the object of encyclopedic discussion. Fut.Perf.☼18:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
But it was the object of discussion, the destruction of it and the events which followed. Are AFP pics not usable at all then? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I see, the article would have had to have been about the image itself, I did not know that, thanks. Is there any rational which would allow for the image to be used? Other than waiting a hundred odd years Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
None that I can think of, unless it turned out that this specific photographic work was the object of significant discussion somewhere, which doesn't seem to be the case. Fut.Perf.☼19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Fut.Perf., Recently you have deleted complete section regarding "attack warnings" without any specific reasons. That section has all previous links connected with 2013 Bodh Gaya blasts. That section is crucially important. Please try to cooperate with everyone as article is in developing stage at current point. You said "Your source is an opinion piece and can't be presented as fact here". I never have mentioned my opinions, please read the citations. The opinions mentioned in that sections are very important with concerned to the security. If you feel that is my opinion please try to discuss and put back that section. I hope you will try to understand. Many thanks-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't really matter whether it's your opinion – what matters is that it is somebody's opinion (the journalist's), and your paragraph was presenting it as if it was fact. Of course, if there has been significant public discussion about prior warnings and such matters, that can and should be covered in our article, but it needs to be properly attributed and placed into a neutral context. Starting off with something like "It is evident that..." is a big no-no. Fut.Perf.☼18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear Fut.Perf., May be you could edit that section if you find some errors in that section. But deleting complete section is great loss of 2013 Bodh Gaya blasts article. That section establishes previous bomb blast links with 2013 Bodh Gaya blasts. The IB warnings, government role, security concerns etc. are crucially important for this blast article. Please edit it, please do not delete such important information. Can I expect edits from you for "attack warnings" section? Many thanks-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, sorry, can't immediately see what creates the difference in formatting, if that's what you mean. But apart from that ... a portal? Are you sure? Personally, I just don't do portals. Never understood what they are supposed to be good for. I know, there are thousands of them, but most of them just linger in near-oblivion. Portal:Byzantine Empire is getting something like 50 page views per day, world-wide. How many would your Sassanid one get? Many get a lot less, maybe 5 or 10 or so per day. Is it really worth the trouble? How many featured or "good" articles have we got in that field? How many different DYKs or "selected articles" will there be to present? How many editors will want to get involved with actually maintaining it? Fut.Perf.☼19:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Alleged tomb of Cyaxares
Since I've noticed that you have been very professional about Surena vs. Statue 2401, I suggest you to check issue about alleged "tomb of Cyaxares". Sources disaprove claim that "Igor Diakonov considers Qyzqapan as Cyaxares' tomb" (current article version):
At the so-called “Median” stone tombs, which are now recognized as the burial places of late Achaemenid notables (Gall, 1966), there are scroll capitals somewhat resembling Ionic forms (e.g., those on the tomb of Qyzqapan; Gall, 1988, pp. 557ff.; see Figure 57h).[62]
At Cambridge history of Iran (1985) [63] text also say that scholars incline to post-Achaemenid dating.
Current version claims tomb is "identified by Diakonoff" while in Iranica article [64] (published in 1993, years after his earlier works) he doesn't even mention it.
From scholary view there isn't any doubt it isn't tomb of Cyaxares, only issue is related to fact that putting such claims was followed by inserting photo with big banner "This Picture was taken in Kurdistan", renaming article to "Cyaxares the Great" [65] by using nationalistic sources (restored by Doug) and introduction mentioning Cyaxares as "father of Kurdish nation" [66]. I've tried to remove it, but was immediately accused as "anti-Kurdish sock". --HistorNE (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Help
Hi, sorry to trouble you. i made some minor edits here [67], but I don't know whats' the deal with the new formating system. Can you see if there's a remedy ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you were working with the new "Visual Editor" thing, right? Apparently it doesn't yet support editing of templates. If you want to insert templates and refs the old-fashioned style, you need to go through the "Edit Source" tab, not the "Edit" tab. (Personally, I deactivated Visual Editor immediately and have never used it yet; you can switch it off through your Preferences).
That said, I don't quite understand why you again did exactly as I advised you not to do in our last exchange: you were again pushing these things about ethnic non-homoegeneity into the lead rather than developing them in the article body, and you seem to have completely removed any reference to either "Iranian" or "Iranian-speaking" from the intro while doing so. That's unlikely to gain consensus in this form. Fut.Perf.☼06:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I found a amazing picture in Flickr, on the license it says Copyright All rights reserved by Retlaw Snellac, don't you think it's ok to upload here then?
Uhm, no. "All rights reserved" is the exact opposite of having a free license. Incidentally, I find it quite unlikely that the Flickr account owner is really the copyright holder here; I see no plausible assertion that he actually painted the picture.
And an "amazing picture"? Well, no, it isn't that either. It's yet another cheap modern dime-a-dozen artist's impression, of no artistic or documentary value whatsoever. Just live with it, people in pre-modern Islamic societies didn't do portraits. It was not part of their culture. We cannot possibly have any idea what any historical figure of that time period looked like. You could just as well draw some phantasy portrait of some vaguely middle-eastern-looking guy with a beard yourself, and it would be of no more and no less value in illustrating the article than this one. Heck, you could draw a single portrait and use it as a standard one-size-fits-all illustration for every article about every medieval Islamic male personality – the likelihood that your drawing (or this one) would resemble the historical Rudaki is exactly the same as the likelihood that it might resemble Ferdowsi, or Hafez, or Sultan Saladin, or the Prophet Mohammed, so why not just use it in all their articles together? Fut.Perf.☼06:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fut. Perf, could you please clarify at Smatprt's talk page whether you meant to narrow his topic ban when you wrote he was "topic-banned from all edits regarding the Shakespeare authorship issue"? He and I disagree about whether the ban covers uncontroversial sections of pages on Shakespeare's individual plays. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Deletion Review Request
Hi, I found the page created by me on Book Beyond A Billion Ballots has been deleted by you citing a reason as Promotion. It was purely about the book & nothing else. Let me know the objectionable part of the content. I request you to review this deletion. Thanks.
Well, there were a lot of things wrong with this article. First, its tone was promotional of both the book and its sponsor (e.g. calling it "insightful", "building a strong case", "credited for adopting innovative good governance practices" etc., all of which are statements of opinion). Second, at least the full first paragraph was copy-pasted from the publisher's blurb here [68] (which both explains why it was so promotional in tone, and signifies that it was a copyright violation). Third, nothing in the article demonstrated how and why the book was notable, so even if you were to recreate it in a cleaned-up way, you'd very likely face another deletion proposal soon enough. Fut.Perf.☼12:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with your concerns. Actually no intention to promote publisher. I wrote, as I'm reading it. I know, i rushed to publish it before citing few more sources & putting it in neutral words. Your quote, "...so even if you were to recreate it in a cleaned-up way, you'd very likely face another deletion proposal soon enough". Does that mean one should create articles about popular author's work only? Isn't there any scope for letting people know about some good books by less familial authors. Its not a fancy fiction, it talks about serious reforms need to undertake for strengthening democracy.
According to commons:Template:PD-Iran, only if you can demonstrate that the painter died before 22 August 1980. Who is the painter? (And incidentally, again, what do you want this image for? Do you ever get your information from anything other than cheap amateur websites?) Fut.Perf.☼14:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, somebody on fa-wp slapping some random template on an image (probably without reading it) is not a reliable source for a person's birth and death dates. Fa-wp is notoriously unreliable anyway. You will need to find out who the painter is, and finding independent reliable evidence for when he lived and when his work was published. Fut.Perf.☼15:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Bad taste
Everyone has his own opinion about something, no need to act like a child and tell me that i have a bad taste, you are admin, act like one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Look. That painting looks like it's taken from a cheap video game designed for male teenagers with inferiority complexes. Some 16-year-olds will undoubtedly appreciate fantasy worlds filled with very virile men with very big muscles, wielding very big swords, straddling very big dragon tails right between their legs, and wearing a tiger mask in front of where their johns should be. Some people might also savour the idea of using the memory of a medieval Persian hero in that role. Fortunately, not every Wikipedia reader is a 16-year-old male with that kind of issue over their own virility. We are still an encyclopedia, not a video gaming website, so that picture goes out. Fut.Perf.☼18:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
First off, i am not 16 years old if you are trying to tell that. Second, as i said before everyone has his own opinion, it may look like a video game to you, but it does not look like that to me, i have even seen it from Iranian TV channels, oh let me guess, they are 16 years old too? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, by looking at the image page, for example, where there is a link to the deletion discussion? Or by simply recognizing that it's obviously another item by the same guy you asked me about the other day? Fut.Perf.☼09:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(Butting in) I agree with Future Perfect. That Rostam picture in particular is incredibly tacky, almost as bad as a Whitesnake album cover. It makes Rostam look like Brian Blessed in Flash Gordon. Why must we have this monstrosity when there's so much great Persian art? --Folantin (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume the bad taste has nothing to do with deletion because of copyright violations. Your taste doesn't play any role in when deciding to delete an image (without any warning): I assume it is only the copyright infringement why pictures are removed directly; not because they are bad. (how true that very probably is). Just 'sharing' in this discussion when I revisited this page to see an answer on a question I had asked (see below) and couldn't find it. Cheers, Tonkie (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
No, indeed, the discussion I'm having here with H.o.I. has nothing to do with my admin work on copyright issues; it's just an editorial disagreement over what images are appropriate content-wise. We are not talking about deleting anything, just about not using it in some articles. (Although H.o.I. also had some issues with other images that were copyright problems and had to be deleted.) Fut.Perf.☼21:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Picture deletion question
Hello. I'm the subject of the photo "File:Samuel West at the London Film Festival screening of Hyde Park on Hudson, October 2012.jpg" which you recently deleted quoting (F7: Violates non-free use policy). I tried to follow WP instructions correctly - although they're extremely confusing - but I'm no expert at photos and have failed. I've no wish to violate copyright but I do have permission from the photographer to use the picture on WP and it is my current headshot (as you can imagine, for an actor it's important that these are kept up to date). I'd be very grateful if you could advise me how to use the photo, since many other actors on WP seem to manage it. Also, any advice or help on removing the citations box, since there are now plenty of citations? Many thanks in advance.
Hello. From what you wrote, it unfortunately didn't appear like you had a fully free license for the picture, i.e. one that allows anybody to re-use it, not just on Wikipedia but also elsewhere. Such a license is required for use on Wikipedia because of our free-content policies. As long as it's not fully free, it falls under our rule that we won't use non-free images of living people, given that a new fully free one could always be created instead. Fut.Perf.☼22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Missed your reply - if any-
Hi FPaS,
Few days ago I wrote you a question on deletion of two images I had added for my article on Dell PE VRTX.
As I didn't have time before to check if you had replied via your own Talk page (as it was clearly not in my talk page) I tried to find it but your talk page is 'cleaned up' and I couldn't find the data (added on 4 July 2013 at 02:23 GMT) in an archive.
Did you reach to my questions? And if so: where can I find it?
My question was:
Deletion of two pictures used in article on Dell PE VRTX (as a new section on this page)
PS: As you seem to clean up your talk page very fast (due to high volume I assume) please reply via my talk page if possible.
Many thanks, Tonkie (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thanks for your reply. It's clear now for me, although I'm not completely convinced of the 'obviously wrong' statement; but that is besides this discussion. For me the discussion is closed now and again thanks for the feedback. Tonkie (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
For Pete's sake, it's already in the article, right in the first sentence, with three high-quality sources, and again in the "archaeology" section, with several more; what else do you want? The stuff I pruned the other day was a link to that Farroukh website. I told you why that one is unuseable. This article works with actual academic print sources, and it's being developed by people who are willing and able to go to a library and actually read and understand high-quality academic print sources. If you are not willing to do that, don't meddle. We are not going to water down the article to your favourite level of cheap amateur website junk. Fut.Perf.☼19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Which were they? Honestly, I don't remember we discussed any others. And what do you need them for? As I said, the basic claim is already well sourced. Fut.Perf.☼19:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We didn't discuss about other sources, but there were more than one source when i posted it on the Scythian article if you didn't notice when you removed it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah right, I see now. Somebody had ref-bombed that sentence with as many as 8(!) footnotes. Now, whenever I see more than three footnotes in a row, I know for certain that an article has been in the hands of POV-pushers. It is never, ever, appropriate to put in that many refs for a single, simple statement of fact. Use one, two, maximum three refs, but use high-quality ones. Among the eight that I saw there, at least four were blatantly unsuitable (Farroukh, plus two from an amateur website called "ancient.eu.com" and one from another called "history-world.org"; a fifth was from Britannica online, which is also not our first choice when higher-quality alternatives from the academic literature exist. One of these pages [69] was even a freaking Wikipedia mirror! It said so right at the top. Seriously, don't you even read the pages which you add as "sources"?) So I pruned the low-quality ones and left the best ones in. I don't think I removed anything else of significance in that edit. Fut.Perf.☼19:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well if it's like that then Wikipedia have some serious problems, because i have many times seen more than 8 sources in a row. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, we undoubtedly have too much rotten quality editing, especially in history articles like this one. But there's still also the issue of the quality of each source. In this case it was uncommonly poor. Fut.Perf.☼19:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom case
Whatever Qwyrxian has said in his statement is twisted. Am I supposed to reply to statement of Qwyrxian or am I supposed to make independent statement on whole issue? What's the meaning of 'statement by'? neo (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, the crucial idea is that you should give your view on why you ought not to be sanctioned, so refuting the accusations made by Qwyrxian would be one way of doing that. Another would be to provide assurances that you have understood what was wrong about your editing and make a clear commitment to change. What you should not try to do is to make lengthy arguments about the content issues at question. Fut.Perf.☼15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Then I think my 2 statements are wide off the mark. I am going to draft a reply to allegations of Qwyrxian. Except allegation of 'tag team', I don't think I have done some other misconduct. As I have said, I will not edit any Gujarat, Politics, religion related article until decision is made. Thanks. neo (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Michele Miscavige
Thanks for cleaning up Michele Miscavige - I was working through the article to clean it up and got partway through a couple of days ago, but hadn't yet got round to tackling the tabloid sources (though I am not sure it's entirely correct to call Vanity Fair a tabloid?). In any case, I've rewritten and recited the offending section. Could you take a quick look and let me know if you think it's better now? Prioryman (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is pointless to close part of WP:AN#Request for sanction removal because the third proposal does not change the sanctions in any way. All of the provisions of that proposal are already in place. It is not clear to me that the sanction appeal would not be successful if allowed to run its course. No one has opposed (or supported) the second proposal. Four editors opposing the first proposal is not very many and could easily be overturned by a dozen supporting. Apteva (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No, what is pointless is your denial of the reality of the situation. Your topic bans are still in place. Period. It is likely you are also about to be topic banned from appealing those bans. Would you like it to end there, or would you prefer to keep behaving like an egotistical child until you get a full site ban? I think a case could be pretty easily made, the community is sick to death of your troublemaking and constant whining. The best thing you can do, for yourself and for Wikipedia is let it go. I don't know how you could be so WP:DENSE as to not see that you are making things worse for yourself with your current behavior, but you are. Check your behavior. Stop arguing about this, stop telling everyone why they are wrong and you are right. We work by consensus here and consensus is clear You are wrong and you need to stop what you are doing. Now. Please don't post some long rambling nonsenss in reply to this post, please just let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
250 plaza photo
Ok do you know where I can find a pic of 250 Plaza without committing any violations? Or should I take a pic of the building myself with my cell phone? Zonafan39 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, for buildings in the US, taking your own picture will be the best solution by far. The architect's copyright doesn't extend to controlling who can publish photographs of the building, so there is no copyright problem involved in taking your own pic. Fut.Perf.☼09:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Closing backlogged FFD noms regarding TV episode screenshots
Yeah, I saw it, and already commented, but I don't really think that RfC has much of a perspective of creating a situation that would change the basis for these deletions. Creating a new exception rule that would essentially grant those images a blanket okay is simply not going to happen. Fut.Perf.☼11:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Today you deleted an image, File:Datuk M Magendran.jpg, that I thought I had taken all the right steps and had met the burden of proof to keep the photo in the article, M. Magendran. Would it be possible for me to keep the contents of the File: page (sans image, of course) and the File talk: page in my user space? I would like to study them to see where I went wrong so that next time I will not make the same mistakes. Thank you for your consideration and for keeping an eye on these things! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!18:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I see that you made two separate cases here: on the file page itself, you described the image as non-free and were trying to make a case for how it passes the WP:NFCC. However, this was doomed to fail, because the person in question is alive, so he falls under our general rule that with living persons, barring some very unusual exceptional circumstances, it would always be possible to create a new alternative image, which its creator could then release under a free license, so a non-free image will always fail the replaceability test. On the file talk page, you were talking about the licensing status of the file, arguing that the use on Facebook implied a license for reuse; however, whatever the meaning of that Facebook rule is, it certainly doesn't constitute a fully free license of the type we require, so we're back at square one. Have you tried contacting the person in question and asking if he'd be willing to release a pic? That would probably be your best bet now. Fut.Perf.☼18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I came to the same conclusion this morning and thank you for your confirmation. Now, would it be possible for you to userfy the content of the File: and File talk: pages so I can study the material? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Just one more quick question... Wouldn't the fact that this photo was taken in 1997, sixteen years ago while still on the mountain and still in his climbing jacket, to commemorate the subject's achievement make it fall into the category of "very unusual exceptional circumstances"? Since the subject was 37 years old then, and is now 53 years old, wouldn't that make it fairly impossible for the subject to create a new, similar alternative image? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ginifer King. 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
result of admin enforcement
Hi, some time ago there was a case of my user with the admin noticeboard, I do not know if you remember. I had written something on your talkpage but it is now in archive. Today the result is that I am blocked for 3 months to edit greek related topics,[70] I thought maybe you want to know the result, I am not trying to get your support to undo this, do not understand me wrong.
At least the truth came out because of this discussion in at least one topic, because you cared to check the topics and background, you found out that the columns of Hagia Sophia were not 23 meter. You did a really good job there, if you would not have noticed the error it would probably go unnoticed, not for the next 5 years but 50 years maybe for ever. DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am now thinking, it was not good that you corrected the height of the columns. The truth is that they are not 23 meter, but the truth itself is not important in Wikipedia, the views of the Wikipedia "users" are what really matter. So it would be better if you would leave it as 23 meter, in accordance with numerous other articles where exactly the same is the case. After all 23 meter was the view of a user but the views of some users in Wikipedia are more valuable than others so you could change it. DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Besides you were the first one to block me, I have been blocked four times since my time on Wikipedia. By two admins however both of them were unjust. You had unfairly blocked me for edit warring on Crimean Tatars, but I was actually restoring rightly info of the source. After the block I was not busy anymore on that page but still other users supported my view and in the end the pov pusher source distorting user was blocked and the sentence was restored.
My second block comes much later when I was falsely accused by two canvassing Greek users who disliked me for creating a Greek army massacre of Turkish civilians, they did a lot of false accusations, and I was blocked again for restoring sourced info, later they blocked me again when I complained against admins of their behavior.
Later an unrelated Armenian out of sheer hate, falsely accused me, but the ironical thing was that you protected me there, why really? What does it matter? Why did you not gave them fun to block me? But now you are ignoring me for what reason? Besides I would like to know what you think of my topic ban after 10 days when the discussion was already in archive?
But in the end they are persistent in blocking me and so show the battle ground mentality which they complain of me but it doesn't matter, I do not care for their blind childish hate. A proverb says injustice does not last forever but maybe it does on Wikipedia.:) DragonTiger23 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Please restore the Soft redirects you just deleted
Please stop rules-lawyering about this. Soft redirects were never meant for uses like this. Just because the WP:Soft redirect page forgot to explicitly specify this particular type of bad idea still doesn't make such a link a legitimate redirect. These were pages that consisted merely of an external link, and just because you opted to wrap them in a fancy template that called it a redirect doesn't change this basic fact. Fut.Perf.☼23:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article WP:Soft redirect explicitly included this particular type of usage and of course that is what a soft redirect is, a template around the external link. Deleting the pages before the RfD discussion were completed is not appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything in WP:Soft redirect that would encourage such links from Wikipedia article space to external non-sister sites. Where has that ever been proposed? Fut.Perf.☼23:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article is a general description of the intent of soft redirects. There is no restriction mentioned there about going only to wiki projects and the second paragraph reinforces that. The second paragraph says "particularly likely to be used when redirecting users across Wikimedia sister projects" The interpretation being pushed that "only links to sister projects is permitted" is not the same as "particularly likely" as stated in the article. Some discussion on WT:Soft redirect. The use I am pushing here is not common but I don't see any documentation anywhere that it is not permitted if it has value to the project, which I believe, of course, that it does. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I am off to bed and I don't really feel like debating this rather silly case of ruleslawyering further. So far, all I can see is a unanimous consensus that these links were an outrageously bad idea, and if the letter of the policy texts is found to be leaving a loophole for it and you will insist on invoking that loophole, then the policy texts will have to be tightened so as to make sense again. If you can find any other administrator who thinks these links are legit, they are free to undo my deletions and reopen the case at RfD, but it will be a waste of time for everybody involved because deletion there is ultimately certain. Fut.Perf.☼00:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Following user:Capital00 spurious sockpuppet report, he suddenly found an interest in Russo-Turkish War (1568–70) reverting referenced information under the edit summary of, "Result must mention the military result, or else you have separate page for the rest of the gains".[71]
The Result stated per sources supplied by me:Ottoman military defeat<rf>Janet Martin, Medieval Russia:980-1584, (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 356. and Ottoman commercial victory<rf>Janet Martin, Medieval Russia:980-1584, 356., which was not good enough for Capital00. His aggressive tone on the talk page indicated he has no idea what the listed source states nor does he care. He edit warred the result to "Russian victory" which is not supported by the current source, calling my information(which is supported by sources) as vandalism.[72]
What is also very clear is that this "new" user is extremely well versed in Wikipedia after being here since Dec 3, 2012 and only 233 edits! So far this "new" user has filed a sockpuppet report and dispute resolution, failing to notify other involved parties, I might add. The latest edit to the talk page from some IP, garnered this response, "Another sock puppet?".[73] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Ping
Hi Future Perfect. I just wanted to remind you that we still have a split opinion here. I didn't want to take unilateral action here, so let me know if you still think some action is warranted--Caililtalk12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Luri and Persian
Hello. Any idea if Luri is considered part of the Persian language? According to the Wikipedia article, it isn't and I haven't found a single source that considers it a Persian language. Would it be acceptable to conflate all Luri speakers and Persian language speakers here List of countries by Persian-speaking population. Iraq has 405,000 Persian language speakers and 99,000 "Luri, Northern" speakers, is conflating both Luri and Persian accurate? Chitooribah (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you can find the answer in this part of the article: " Despite their similarities to standard Persian, the Lori dialects share features that set them apart as a group from the standard language. It is in their phonology that the Lori dialects diverge most noticeably from Persian."Farhikht (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Linguistically I wouldn't consider them to be the same language. Maybe it would be helpful to briefly but plainly state their relationship in the article in question, namely that according to your source there are 405,000 Persian speakers and 99,000 Luri speakers, which is very closely related. –jonsafari (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it won't render the map after someone did...something no matter what. Any idea how to fix it? Cheers — Lfdder (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Dang, no idea what's going on. It seems to affect only this one file. The file wasn't changed, it still displays correctly when I load it directly into my browser as SVG, and its German-language model still displays correctly too. Must be a rendering bug in the internal SVG-to-PNG converter on the server. No idea how to sidestep this. Fut.Perf.☼12:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for that. I had completely forgotten that thing was based on an embedded bitmap. Still, doesn't really explain what happened technically. Other maps with embedded pngs are still working fine. Fut.Perf.☼17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou. Question re images, what is the position of images, not screencaps, freely released as wallpaper from now defunct official websites of TV series'? Who is left to enforce copyright? The TV shows retain copyright by the current rights holders.REVUpminster (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless the websites were releasing those wallpapers with explicit free license statements ("cc-by" etc.), which I'd expect they usually wouldn't, they are still non-free. Legally, it's the same situation as that described in {{Non-free promotional}}. In terms of NFC policy, they'd still have to pass the same standards of NFCC#8 as screenshots, so it doesn't really make much of a difference. Fut.Perf.☼09:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I made some range blocks on the vandal's IPS, but if this continues we can certainly add semi-protection for some while. Sorry about the trouble. The attacker is a well known long-term vandal, some sadly deranged individual who has been harassing me and a couple of other administrators for several years. He'll occasionally turn up and vandalize basically any page I recently touched. Fut.Perf.☼11:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
and read this edit summary here [75]. How they mistreat my username! Unintentionally a great and awful problem you have brought to me !Samudrakula (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Just ignore him please. He'll move on to other pages. I'll be applying range blocks for whatever ISP range he turns up on. Don't try talking to him or "warning" him, it's not worth the effort. He's batshit insane, so it's really no use trying to communicate with him. Fut.Perf.☼16:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Colton Cosmic is indefinitely blocked, not banned. Please use accurate descriptions in these kinds of actions. — Scott•talk12:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Heraldry76
Heraldry76's continued harassment of user:Laveol and commenting on another editor's ethnicity is out of line, "Stop deleting, pages and sections from wikipedia, you deleted the part about Macedonia just because your Bulgarian."[76] Does this fall under Arbmac2? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion?
You closed my proposal for a review policy, and related arbitration body.[[77]]
I had added evidence for these policy additions, but you redirect to cancer talk. Please direct me to more a more senior Wikipedia body to discuss the need for arbitration of what constitutes the most appropriate or preferred review of the research.32cllou (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)That's not how Wikipedia works. Discuss the matter on the article's talk page first. If you cannot reach consensus, then use dispute resolution. Consider, for example, WP:DRN; if that fails to achieve consensus, then WP:Mediation. Wikipedia does not set up ad hoc boards/committees to determine which references will be used in an article; any editor is always welcome to comment on any matter at any time (well, almost any editor, anyway). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You enacted a topic ban on Yogesh Khandke here. It bans him from all articles related to Indian history, can you clarify please if the article Anti-Muslim violence in India falls under the scope of that ban? It covers Indian history from the time of partition up to 2002. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My participation in the discussion is limited to incidents regarding 1983, 1992 and 2002, and 2006, all within my life time, actually I was a teen in 1983. Also the issue that triggered my ban was the Aryan invasion theory, thousands of years old. I think this issue was settled during MRT3366's case related AN/I. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Can't follow...
I kind of think it's self-explanatory, or at least clear enough that it wouldn't cause you to instinctively revert. Anyway, I'll try to go with an explanation:
The first and second paragraphs seem to focus on the history of the city's nomenclature, while the third paragraph focuses on the etymology of the name Istanbul and its use in English. To me, it makes sense to conclude the discussion (from paragraphs one and two) about all these names used by various people with a statement that essentially says "But all that nonsense ended in 1930 when Istanbul was adopted as the sole official name". (Maybe the sentence could be expanded by clarifying that the city wanted other people and languages to use Istanbul also.) That also provides a transition to the next paragraph about the background of the name and its use in English.
However, I feel that, in its current location, the sentence is out of place. We have two sentences -- Also, while in English the stress is on the first syllable (Is), in Turkish it is on the second syllable (tan). and A person from the city is an İstanbullu (plural: İstanbullular), although Istanbulite is used in English. -- that, to me at least, seem like they should be right after each other (showing differences in Turkish and English). But instead they're split by this sentence about the adoption of the current name in 1930. -- tariqabjotu18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding sooner. I can see now where you're coming from. On the other hand, what irritated me was the insertion of apparently unrelated material between the sentence that said "['Istanbul'] ... predates the Ottoman and Muslim conquest of the city" and the one that gave the details about "Etymologically, the name [...] derives from the Medieval Greek phrase "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν"...". Because I read that second sentence as basically the explanation immediately following up on and substantiating the previous one. Looking at it again, I get the feeling the logical progression isn't quite compelling in either version, but I don't immediately see how to fix it. Fut.Perf.☼19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Care to explain this in more detail? I don't think this deletion was appropriate, and my arguments are found in the link above.
As I said in the Commons discussion, you are confusing free licensing with "fair use". The Israeli law you cite is describing conditions on legal fair use, but that doesn't mean you are free to put an image like that under a fully free license that would be admissible on Commons. Fut.Perf.☼18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Images you deleted
I need you to restore the pictures you deleted. I uploaded it properly and provided a webpage to the copyright. Also, on the website, it states that anyone can use it as long as they credit the website.
You said these images were non-free. You didn't mention any free license, and I can't find any free license on the source website [78] either. The images had blatantly inappropriate fair use rationales ("to add a cover to the article" is never a proper justification for non-free content). All of these are obviously replaceable with other, free, media. You can't upload non-free images like this. Other uploads of yours will probably have to be deleted too. Please make yourself more familiar with the non-free content policy before attempting any further uploads. If, of course, the images actually are free, then you can re-upload them, but you will need to provide better documentation of their status. Fut.Perf.☼14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't have the right to delete the pictures. Copyrighted images can be used on Wikipedia. What you're telling me doesn't make sense. Also, since you're an expert when it comes to uploading pictures, you should upload them. I don't want to keep getting flag; it's frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace1608 (talk • contribs)
fictitious portraits of historical figures
Remember this comment? I am, personally, in favor of avoiding portraits or historic people painted by artists who have never seen them, but in case of the Armenians that means that we will have to skip the period from 1st century BC to 19th century, because there are no historical portraits/sculptures of most Armenian notables from that period, including Mesrop Mashtots (the inventor of the Armenian alphabet), Vardan Mamikonian (a very important 5th century military commander), Moses of Chorene (the main historian of Armenia), etc. Excluding these men from the collage is not quite the brightest idea. What do you think? --Երևանցիtalk07:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want to hear my real, personal opinion, I actually think that the whole idea of these collages is not a very good idea in the first place. It's one of these "everybody does it because everybody else does it, but nobody really knows why" kinds of things on Wikipedia. As for having to skip a lot of notable people, yes, well, that's a common issue not just with Armenians. I guess at least 90 percent of all notable historical figures we have articles on lived in cultures and periods in which people simply didn't do portraits. Cross-culturally speaking, portraits are a very very rare phenomenon really. Fut.Perf.☼17:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Dude, you went too far....
Ok, I would like to point out to you that I am a new user on Wikipedia and to be honest, you came off strong and extremely rude. I have never encountered that kind of behavior from anyone on Wikipedia before. Especially from an administrator! Block me all you want, but I am telling you that what you did as COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR! Every other administrator that I have encountered and have said similar things to have been extremely leaneant toward me and are calm. You seemed to have thrown a tantrum at me when I made a part 2. I made a very similar proposal about the Safavid and Afsharid Empires and people might have opposed, but did not go as far as you did. You threatened to block me? Seriously? I did not deserve that kind of treatment at all. I whole heartedly give up on the proposal and will not attempt it again, but I do believe you owe me an apology. Keeby101 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Help needed
Can you take a look here? DS is trying to put the phrase "Bangladesh civil war", while the source never mentioned the phrase, it just called it "a civil war" in its description and hence I'm suggesting to change the phrase from "Bangladesh civil war" to "a civil war".--Zayeem(talk)13:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Strangesad
saw your revdels. I rported Strangesad for socking, which you may want to comment on, but as he pretty much admitted it in the edit summaries, you could probably short circuit my SPI and just block. Between the puppetry, and the obvious disruptive editing, a think a block is more than appropriate, but there is a reason they don't give me the mop :) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that's a misunderstanding. The IPs weren't Strangesad, but an unrelated vandal, User:Wikinger, who likes impersonating other editors just to cause trouble. Fut.Perf.☼20:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Fut.Perf., the discussion at ANI resulted in a proposal to topic-ban Strangesad, and a user is asking for closure. I'd appreciate it if you would assess community consensus, or suggest another admin who could help. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the warning, especially reminding about the discretionary sanction. And apologies for creating some extra work. It's been a while I have been an edit war! So, perhaps was tempted! Anyway, sorry for creating yet another interruption in the otherwise smooth flow in Wikipedia. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Faizan is continuously edit warring in the article without adhering to the talk page discussions. Please take a look here.--Zayeem(talk)07:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate such notes on admins' talk pages. Take a look here...??? I was just restoring changes as agreed by the RfC. I think we need a new RfC there. Faizan07:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise! I just got poked towards your recent edits on the two talk pages linked to above. Your two closes of discussion on Talk:Byzantine_Empire see rather bitey to me! You clearly have contributed to Byzantine Empire in the past and probably has some opinions on the article. All I ask is that you allow users even if you have a very strong opinion on what should and shouldn't happen to discuss or attempt to discuss any changes they want to put forward, ( It is better than them rushing forward and trying to merge the articles themselves without discussing ).
I have added a note to the first section as it does indeed exist on another talk page and I have removed the archive tags from the second discussion. I have also replied to Keeby101 on my talk page here and I am sure my response there will help Keeby101. ·addshore·talk to me!23:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Apologies and regards to your 2nd attempt to block me.
I am sorry for the edit war on the Sasanian Empire talk page. I made that abundantly clear to everyone on that talk page by going on to there talk pages and making formal apologies. So there you have it. In regards to you threatening to block me from editing again, why? I even explained in the description that that edit was temporary until the new map created by the users at the Map Workshop finish the brand new and completely accurate map of the Sasanian Empire to go into the infobox of that article. That indicated that that was my last edit on that article and yet you are threatening to block me for it? Truly I think that you are being a little too harsh on this whole matter, but oh well. As I said before on the talk page of that article itself, you all can have it your way then if you do not want me to edit on this article. Peace ☮
I even said that I wasnt threatening anyone there. I was saying that it would be a major loss in the world of Wikipedia if people are to lose faith on me. Truth be told I should have rephrased what I said there. I do not have good online etiqute as I said on my talk page. Apologies. Keeby101 (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
To Kansas Bear, go to my talk page and look at this topic that I posted and it will explain it all. "Truth be told. I have the worst online etiqutte and I am so far terrible at creating articles... :(" Regards. Keeby101 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Kansas Bear. This is getting beyond a joke now. How much of his and our time is this guy going to waste with his half-baked content fork [[80]]? --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry
I regret on my recent disturbance. I did not meant ot do that. I copied the text from Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, and did not see the figures of killed people. 1 million casualty figure is given by several unreliable sources. I forgot to look at the text I copied more accurately. I swear I did not do it deliberately. I am willing to keep myself away from the topic for months. I will focus on Anti-Vandalism and fixing work. You need not to take me to AE. My regrets again. You have the right to take action, but I am willing to learn without causing further disturbance. Faizan08:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please Sir! Let me know where I am wrong, and I will learn. I make mistakes often, but I am learning. Please can reconsider your warning? As I did not do it deliberately. I did not replace or mingle up words for POV. Please Sir? A chance? Faizan08:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Faizan, you need to learn to stop edit warring. Edit warring does not necessarily involve WP:3RR (and it seems that you need to either learn to count to 3 or learn what 24 hours means). This "sorry" message to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is just one of the apologies that you have given to various editors, but you haven't learned nearly enough, or indeed anything that I can see evidence of. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, will you please have a look at User:Pectore's repeated removal of sourced contents from various articles even after being warned multiple times by various users? The latest removal is here. He has failed to justify these removals or achieve any consensus. How many times will others waste time in restoring them? Thanks.--AsceticRosé04:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
User:AfricaTanz
Despite your warning and the discussions in the Bengal page, the user is still removing contents from several articles instead of adding the citation needed tags. As explained earlier, the contents are unsourced but quite easily verifiable. For example, he removed the film Bhalobasa Aaj Kal from the List of Bangladeshi films of 2013#Box office releases, but there are enough sources in the film's own article which can verify that the film was released in 2013. I don't know if it's an attempt to improve the article or an intentional disruption. --Zayeem(talk)11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
express my displeasure over this comment made by you, which branded me as being part of a gang of nationalistic POV pushers. You disagree with me on this issue - that is totally fine, but labeling me because my vote is not in line with your views is not. I do not expect or demand a response from you; my sole purpose in posting this here is to register my protest. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: Image Deletion Tag
Hi, thanks for the heads up. Yes, I'm currently looking into the reason for their deletion from the article and have my eye on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to get it back in without any conflict.TorBel80 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked this editor indefinitely. See User talk:HistoryofIran. He ignored your warnings of July 6th and he seems to think he doesn't have to worry about copyvio if its "barely any words" although in fact his copyvio since your warning has been much more substantial than a few words. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
You've blocked them for three months, but only put three weeks on the notice. I've changed the notice to match the actual block, but as they've had 2 days, 1 week and 2 weeks already I wasn't sure which you intended. Peridon (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Usain Bolt lightning pic
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise.
I see you've deleted the Usain Bolt picture I uploaded. That's all my newbie uploads deleted now. Bummer.
There was a discussion about this upload here. I had thought consensus was pretty clear that this was an iconic image the object of discussion itself in the text. Discussion of the image itself is multiply documented: I gave several citations in the discussion and two in the article.
Hello. The way I read the discussion at the NFC review board, especially the contributions to it by Stifle, January and Stefan2, as well as the later comments by Masem, there seemed to be a fairly clear predominant opinion that the coverage in the article didn't in fact justify the use of the image. Fut.Perf.☼14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well all right. So why didn't you close the discussion then, rather than two minutes after you wrote the above? Incidentally the image was robotic, copyright could equally be challenged on the same sort of lines as your user page monkey, an image which is certainly claimed as owned by Cater News Agency, a UK company not big enough to be noted in Wikipaedia (even have its claimed copyright acknowledged it would seem) but nevertheless a repository of some of the most drop-dead gorgeous travel photography ever recorded.
Can we be clear here, since you are an administrator expert in these matters? You consider the Usain Bolt pic is not iconic, was not itself the object of discussion rather the event it depicted? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
About the closure: when deleting images based on these kinds of discussions, I often rely on a bot doing an automatic closure on registering the deletion, in cases where I consider the outcome more or less self-evident from the gist of the discussion. Perhaps in this case that was a bit too optimistic; in any case, seeing that the motivation of the closure was evidently not obvious to you, I considered it better to leave an explicit closure note now. Sorry for not doing that right away. As for the issue of the image being "robotic", I don't see that you raised that as an argument in the discussion, but I actually don't think the comparison holds. The taking of the Bolt picture was evidently carefully planned; whatever "automatic" or "robotic" elements were involved in it were clearly under the tight intentional control of the human who set them up. That was not the case in the ape pics you compared them with, where the apes did things with the camera that its owner had very much not intentionally planned or arranged, or even anticipated. As for the question of the image being the object of discussion, please refer to the judgments expressed by those editors who participated in the thread. Fut.Perf.☼15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise. I have requested clarification from the arbitration about the instruction you logged about interaction bans in WP:ARbR&I. You might wish to comment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:NFCC#1 und WP:CSD#F7. It was a non-free image of a living individual, where we can always assume that a free replacement by a new, freely licensed alternative would be possible. Furthermore, it was falsely labelled as serving as the object of commentary (and the article being "dedicated to the discussion of this work"), and as a "unique historic image"; both claims are obviously untrue. Fut.Perf.☼19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been proposed at the above named request for clarification, in which you were named as a party. The motion can be viewed here. Please feel free to register your comments at the clarification request. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Perfect at Sunrise,
I thank you very much for your last message.
Let me explain why I keep on changing the climate data:
First, because they DO NOT ALL have the same reference period. How accurate can it be to have a different baseline? Why does Germany has a baseline 1929 and Turkey 1970? By the way, the mgm.gov.tr website has changed it recently to 1960 again.. No one knows really what they are doing.
According to the WMO (World Meteorological Station), the baseline should be 1929 and this should be applied to all cities around the world for the reader to have a more accurate view of climate data. The new reference might be distorted because of climate change (controversy?)... That is why the WMO is not willing to update the baseline 1929.
If the Turkish Government decides to follow his own reference period, (1960- 2012 or sometimes even on their website 1970- 2010, you can notice it if you speak Turkish as I do), that should not be applied to Turkish cities anyways.
Second, the text contradicts the table. Saying that Istanbul has 2 months precipitation less than 40mm does not match the table.
Third, Istanbul has NOT a Mediterranean Climate but rather a transitional climate between Csa (mediterranean) and Cfb (oceanic), giving a sort of Cfa. I already discussed this issue with the Institute of the Köppen- Geiger Institute in Vienna and they told me that the climate of Istanbul is hard to define so better, stick with the word transitional climate.
By the way, I am not changing the text because it needs a lot of research.
I appreciate that you replied because I was all the time wandering who is always blocking my updates. So now that you know that there is something wrong with the "Istanbul climate" page, Fix it OR let me do it. I am always backing it up with the source WMO, from which the temperature data are taken for example.
Reply to me--VMAHALLESI (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration clarification request closed
This is a message to inform you that a request for clarification has now been closed and following motion has been passed. The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that
In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk·contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs) and Cla68 (talk·contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:
User:Dr.K. and I (the only editors on this article) are having trouble coming to a meeting of the minds on what constitutes a reliable source and how to use the sources we have to write this article. Perhaps you could look in and see if you can help us out. --Macrakis (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
And a small correction. This is a 7-year old article which I largely wrote and the above editor just appeared out of nowhere a few days ago. So his statement above: (the only editors on this article) is misleading. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις04:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
My list article that you deleted a month back.
Hello again Future Perfect. Look, I know that we have not exactly been on good terms, especially with the Roman and Byzantine Empire talk pages. I apologized for those on the talk pages a few weeks ago. Also the reason why I lashed at you on my talk page is because I was angry at the fact that an administrator was threatening to block me for the second time. In which I apologize for that as well. However, I would like to talk to you about my list article, the same list article that you deleted approximately a month and a half ago. It was titled List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive.. I wish to revive it under a different name. I talked to Administrator Dougweller a while back and he told me that I needed to talk to you about this as you were the one who deleted the article, thus you are the only one who can grant me permission to revive the article as well. I have actually found very reliable sources. Sources that are books and from Newspapers rather than websites. All that I ask of you is to give the list article that I made a second chance. Regards. :D Keeby101 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Fixing obvious NFC violations is exempt from 3RR. In this case you have been repeatedly adding non-free files to a list in violation of policy. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm very convinced that the picture you put up for deletion is free to share and that Riot Games has no constraints of wanting it to be gone of this page. However, the least I can do is to blur the Team SoloMid logo from his shirt, but that's it.
That is unfortunately not enough. The only thing that would make an image like this useable for us would be an explicit statement by the copyright holders placing it under a fully free license, such as the cc-by-sa license, allowing everybody to use it for any purpose and free from any restriction. Failing that, we're left with our own policy that says that we don't resort to non-free pictures where a free alternative could possibly be created. Fut.Perf.☼12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. This was a matter of a temporary workaround for a server-side problem that appears to have gone away now, so I've set it back to the way it was originally intended to work. Fut.Perf.☼23:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I just tried it, and it's still not working. It's still performing the way I described, with the "File:Example.jpg" displayed on the last screen as a link to the File:Example.jpg file, instead of the file the user uploaded. I'll note that the script is designed to display a second-to-last screen before this one, and that screen does display the user's uploaded filename correctly, at least until this screen clears and the last screen is displayed. As well, the last screen displays the user's filename in other ways, so it seems like the script communicated with the last screen correctly for some dynamic parameters but not this most important one. —Prhartcom(talk)04:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It was working for me when I tried it. Are you sure you cleared your cache correctly? As far as I remember, in order to make sure you load the most recent version of the script, you need to go to the WP:FUW page, start the wizard first, and only then press shift-reload or whatever command your browser has for clearing the cache. Thanks a lot for your work in helping to fix this. Fut.Perf.☼06:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I left what I believed to be helpful information to you at the Village pump (technical) before I saw your suggestion to clear my cache (duh), so I tried that, and it worked. I am curious, was I on the right track with my observation? Thanks a lot for your technical expertise, I'm glad this is fixed; I'm sure this was confusing a few people. —Prhartcom(talk)12:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, I took a look at the Javascript for the first time. Please forgive my inexpertise, but it appears you broke the script when you introduced the variable "fuwSuccessLink2", as file history shows there used to be only the one "fuwSuccessLink" (and it was the second, newly introduced variable that was not working). Now the script is more complicated with the two variables, even if it is now working properly. As well, the script still has your unfortunate comment "// moved here temporarily, for as long as the success callback isn't working" still in production. Will you please consider simply putting the script back to what it was before you introduced the second variable? —Prhartcom(talk)13:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The two parallel calls with "fuwSuccessLink" and "fuwSuccessLink2" are now both needed; one sets the link in the "waiting" screen and the other the one in the "success" screen. I think there's nothing wrong about letting that link in the waiting screen in place at this point. I know the story is confusing. Thing is, iirc there was originally only one such link, in the success screen, then a couple of months ago something was changed in the server settings of the MediaWiki installation that had the effect that the success screen would never actually be shown, so as a makeshift workaround I put another link/notification into the waiting screen instead, leaving the links in the now-dysfunctional success screen unset. Now suddenly the success screen is back again, so I had to restore the link-setting code for it. Fut.Perf.☼14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I follow you. No telling what was going on at the MediaWiki installation; I think those are the paid programmers; perhaps they corrected a bug they had introduced. Question: Since the success screen is back again, is it fair to say that if no one had touched the Javascript code, the FUW would be working today? —Prhartcom(talk)14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making this effort at getting a license for this image. Unfortunately, what you asked of the copyright owners was not quite sufficient for us, since you only asked for a permission to use the image on this one Wikipedia page. To be legally on the safe side and to ensure our contents are fully free for re-use elsewhere, in accordance with our project mission, we have to make sure we get explicit permission not just for our own use, but also for everybody else to use the image elsewhere and for other purposes. I know it's a bit awkward to keep pestering the copyright owners with such requests, but if you think the image is important for the article, I'm afraid you'll have to contact them again and ask if they'd be willing to give such a comprehensive license too. The best form of it would be a statement along the lines of "we release this image under the terms of the CreativeCommons-Attribution-Sharealike license (cc-by-sa)". When you get that, you could please forward their mail to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". Thanks, – Fut.Perf.☼23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted photo uploaded by me. I was the photographer of this photo. I didn't take it from this website. Previosly I uploaded it into Commons (Martyrs' Lane Mosque Baku). But after that this photo was deleted (no FOP in Azerbaijan). Maybe at that time that website took photo from Commons. You can check this. Compare the date of uploaded into Commons photo and the photo from this site (28.11.2012). Also you can compare the size of my photo and the size of the photo from that website. They took my photo, not me. --Interfase (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sorry I didn't understand the situation correctly. I've restored the file. I notice you have in the meantime uploaded another similar photo though, and since both are now marked as non-free and only one of them will be used in the article, please be aware that whichever ends up unused will probably get deleted again after a while. Fut.Perf.☼23:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "List of species rumored/believed to still be alive".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not assume that by opening this case I am making any assumptions about any administrative actions. This might end up being a simple case of educating a new user. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you delete Wikipedia:User scripts for me? I've got some time to dig into this now and no one at the CSD cabal seems to be awake. equazcion� | 06:47, 6 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Yes I'll be doing the rest now, thanks so much! equazcion� | 06:54, 6 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Warning
Since you have expressed a personal opinion as to the status of the Cardenio image, you are now WP:INVOLVED, and I advise you that it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy for you to used your admin powers in respect to the dispute. Further, please point out where NFCC disputes are immune from 3RR - to my knowledge, only removal of information subject to BLP is immune from 3RR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
No. I had already begun taking legitimate administrative action on this file before it was (unnecessarily) relisted at FFD, and will therefore continue to do so. This includes the option of taking administrative action to stop you or others from edit-warring to reinsert the file or from illegitimately removing valid deletion tags – either by page protection or by blocking. Please take this as a formal warning. As for the exemption from 3RR, just read the WP:3RR page; it's quite prominently stated there together with the BLP exemption. Fut.Perf.☼18:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The 3RR exemption is only for material that:
Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first.
Since the status of the image is under community discussion, there is, in point of fact, question about whether it violates the NFCC or not. Your status as an admin gives you no special power to determine the end result of that discussion before it has taken place. Therefore, your editing is not immmune from 3RR concerns and I have appropriately warned you below. If you continue to edit war, I will report you to WP:EWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
You are also reminded that while admins are indeed asked to enforce NFCC to the best of their understanding of the policy, it is the community as a whole which determines how that stated policy is to be enforced, and when there is a question in specific cases about whether an image is in violation, it is discussion by the community that determines the application of the policy. At that point, admins need to stand off and await the community's decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
If the uploader can get a free license for the image, they are welcome to say so and have the image restored. So far, they only claimed they had a permission for this Wikipedia-only use, which, even if he provided proof of it, would be insufficient to remove it from the scope of the NFC rules. As long as no plausible claim of free licensing has been made, the usual deletion procedures (48 hours for evidently replaceable images) will be followed. Fut.Perf.☼01:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, George, if the uploader had credibly asserted permission under a free license, then we'd willing to wait at least a week, sometimes more, while the permission came in. But we do not accept "OK to use on Wikipedia." In cases like that, where fair use is asserted, then we wait the normal 2 days for deletion. In short, no permission only ever applies to freely licensed files. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise. My intent is not to spread any nationalist views on the matter, but instead to reach a more neutral representation of the facts. You mentioned yourself that it's not suitable for an infobox to contain disputed claims, so why then you don't simply go on the article on Serbo-Croatian to engage on removing this when it's even mentioned in parentheses that it's disputed. No double rules please. If it's not suitable for the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian, it shouldn't be either for the article on Serbo-Croatian. Isn't it a fair solution? Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that your DI tag was contested by me without removing it and removed by another administrator, which one is easier: adding back the image for accessibiity, or using history log? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You're the one removing it and threatened (or "warned", in your perspective) to block any of us if we add the image back. You're lucky that those at WP:ANI didn't punish you. And I'm sure that, if you add it back, more people will come in and then comment. --George Ho (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
question: copyright status of images from 1950 East Germany
Hi, since you deal with the copyright status of images frequently, I thought I'd ask you this question. Do you know what the status of government published works in 1950's German Democratic Republic is? Specifically propaganda posters from 1950 or so. From what I understand for the Soviet Union pre-1973, the images might be in public domain (though I think there is disagreement on this as well), but I don't know anything about how it works for East Germany. Any help would be appreciated, and thanks. Volunteer Marek 20:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier. Honestly I don't know what the old East German laws were, but I'd guess that since the whole East German system was taken over by the Western German one (before the 1996 UAA date that's usually crucial for how foreign copyrights apply in the US), it might well be the case that all these cases are retroactively treated according to the same rules as west German works, in which case you'd be left with 70 y.p.m.a. Fut.Perf.☼05:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you happen to know the circumstances as to user:EMr KnG locked account?[81] I believe a "new" editor called Erim Turukku is the same person.[82] Both push a Turkic/Turkish POV over multiple articles and both write with a broken form of English, though Erim Turukku has been copy/pasting what I have written on the Ismail I talk page. This "new" editor needs to be notified of the restrictions to editing Armenian and Azerbaijani articles.
Also, this editor has falsified a quote from C.E.Bosworth's "The Ghaznavids:994-1040", page 134, stating, "Ghaznavid Dynasty (Viz language of palace) and other aristocracy, and Ghaznavid army was Turkic speaker. Persian was just official language of correspondence in Ghaznavid.". As you can see the quote is broken form of English and no where is this stated on page 134, nor anywhere else in Bosworth's book, I know since I own the book!
I don't know why this infrequently edited page is semi-protected. Sockpuppetry or excessive vandalism? I don't see any much of it this year. Care to lower protection level to level-one pending changes? --George Ho (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This image was stated as my own work. When I uploaded the file. WP did not offer me this option to select but I stated so plainly enough that any troll should have seen it. Instead of advising me to change the non-free status and giving me time to do so, you apparently deleted the file immediately and informed me afterwards. Please restore it immediately or I will report your actions as abusive. Jonyungk (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't in fact see you described the photograph as your own. That bit got lost on me among some other stuff that just didn't seem to make much sense together. The basic misunderstanding though appears to have been that you felt you had to treat the car itself as a copyrighted non-free object, like an artwork. That is in fact not necessary, since cars and other utilitarian objects do not attract copyright as such. So, if the photograph is your own, you are free to license it under a free license and all will be fine. I've restored the file so you can do that. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf.☼16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Billy Fury mural image
Hi, as advised I have asked for copyright clarification and given a background history of the image at the copyright questions page.
So sorry to upload in violation of F7. Doesn't WP:F7 Where it says "the subject of sourced commentary" in "...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 WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately...." doesn't that mean if the photo is the subject of the article then it's okay? I must be missing something obvious. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Anna! From what I can see, the issue here is that actually, the photo isn't the subject of the article, rather, the person shown in the photo is. The criterion you're referring to doesn't allow a non-free image if it shows the subject of sourced commentary, but only if it is itself the subject of the commentary. So for example, that image could only occur if there were something in the article talking about that specific photo of Heinrich Boere. (See here for an example of a non-free image of a living person that can be used legitimately, as this picture itself is discussed in the article text.) I hope this helps! I'm not speaking for FutPerf, of course, only stating my own knowledge of policy. Heimstern Läufer(talk)09:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Heim for this explanation; that's basically the point I'd be making. When I wrote the questionnaire for the file upload script, I was trying really hard to explain this distinction between "the image itself" and "the thing or person shown in the image", but it's apparently still a point that escapes many uploaders. Fut.Perf.☼09:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Ahhhhh, "the file itself". Thank you Heimstern for clearing this up. Thank you Future Perfect at Sunrise for your tolerance. I'm an idiot, and will be more careful next time. Best wishes to you both. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Being a little harsh on yourself, don't you think? Lots of people get this one confused, and then lots of them show up in angry huffs on admins' talk pages when the images get deleted, so your approach thus far has been nice compared to what we often experience. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
FPAS, I've reverted your blanking in violation of WP:BLPBAN, and noted my reversion in the log. While it may be that a consensus could develop to overturn my action, a few people commenting at ANI, who do not exceed at the time of this writing those voting to overturn the original close at the appropriate DRV, don't amount to a consensus. I encourage you to read and review the discussion on my talk page and in the DRV, rather than just the ANI. I assure you that my reasoning is in no way, shape, or form frivolous, and that I do strongly believe that by Wikipedia failing to honor our own inclusion guidelines with respect to Mr. Earl, especially during the U.S. holiday season, we do him a material disservice. Have you read last week's CNN article on him? It calls for people to help him out, and that is precisely what I hope people do, and hope that Wikipedia editors understand they will be hindering if this otherwise notable gentleman's bio is deleted. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The consensus against your invocation of BLPBAN is as clear as anything. I did in fact look over your page too, and have so far not seen a single observer agreeing with your take on BLPBAN, while many have condemned it in strong terms. You are alone against a solid consensus here. I will again formally warn you against any further attempts at invoking a BLP exemption in doing anything futher in this matter, as it will most certainly constitute an abuse of your admin role. Fut.Perf.☼15:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Protecting an article you've been edit waring on isn't the best of all possible calls. Protecting your preferred version even less so. I understand why you did it, but you really (really) should have gotten an uninvolved admin to do so. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved admin. My first reversion (re-hiding the article content) was itself an administrative action too, just as was my overturning of the logged "article sanction". I am merely continuing to act in the same capacity. Fut.Perf.☼22:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Synonyms of multiple origins
In many languages, there are sets of synonyms coming from different strata. In English, there are Germanic and Romance synonyms (calf/veal); in Turkish (esp. Ottoman Turkish), Turkic/Persian/Arabic (kara/siyah/?, ak/?/beyaz); in Japanese, Japanese and Chinese; in most European languages, local/Latinate/Greek (benediction/eulogy/...). Is there a technical name for this phenomenon, either for the individual word or for the language vocabulary? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but I can't really think of any specific term either. I might call them "register-specific synonym pairs" or something along those lines, but I don't remember having seen any fixed conventional term to refer to them. Fut.Perf.☼14:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Opinion
Can we get your opinion regarding minor content dispute here. [83]. My interpretation is that user: Jingiby is being 'liberal', to put it mildly, with his interpretation of the sources [84], jumping from the notion that there was no distinct Macedonian identity to an idea that somehow 'but Macedonia's location had been forgotten and designated in areas mostly outside the ancient Macedonian kingdom, vanishing completely after the Ottoman conquest". Sounds like uter nonsense. How can a culturally and political central region, at the heart of 3 Empires be 'forgotten'. It reads like OR, POV or simply poor grammer. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't had time to review either the sources or the exact context and appropriateness of their use in the article, but on first sight the text you object against at least doesn't sound quite implausible. As far as I know, the term Macedonia was indeed used in geographical senses widely disjoint from the original ancient meaning, and it may well have been the case that it was largely discontinued as a name of any concrete modern territory in common usage at some stage. I'd need more time to figure out if it really makes sense to stress such a claim at that point in the article though. Fut.Perf.☼14:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Future. Some editors are losing their nerves and make odd edits trying to take revenge? In fact the region of Macedonia really changed its location during Byzantine times and even its name was lost in the early Ottoman Balkans. Jingiby (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done. Technically, image deletions can only be done by administrators, so it's no wonder you didn't succeed. Thanks for letting me know though. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you should have any further questions about image use (I know it's a topic many new users find rather difficult). Best regards, – Fut.Perf.☼20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
In answer to all three above: please note that the IP who started the revert-warring today was an unrelated banned troll, User:Wikinger. As such, these edits were subject to legitimate blanket reversal, including reversal by Werieth himself, exempt from 3RR. It was therefore also not a good idea for Andy Dingley to re-revert them on the sole grounds that the previous reversion had been done by Werieth himself, especially as he had been warned previously against these text additions. Where reverting of obvious banned socks is concerned, the identity of the reverter and the number of reverts is of no concern. On the other hand, I'm not too keen on blocking Andy just yet, since from the history it is not quite apparent to me if he could be clearly expected to understand the nature of that IP's disruption, and Werieth seems to have failed to explicitly mark his reverts as 3RR-exempt reverts of a banned user. Can we just leave it at that and all do something more useful for now? Fut.Perf.☼22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you're the last active member of the Bonaparte-detecting triad (bogdan seems to be indisposed at the moment and Khoikhoi appears to have given up completely), I hereby request your expert attention over here. This (and this) looks a lot like a sudden relapse of same old. --illythr (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't leave Rude comments on my page.
And you don't change anything within Berke Khan's bio because clearly you know nothing about him.
I am a 2nd year History student and Berke Khan happens to be my distant ancestor.
Huh? Not sure what you are even referring to. I left one comment on your talk page, and that was a legitimate administrative warning (which still stands as such). Fut.Perf.☼08:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You are free to disagree with my warning, but that doesn't change the fact that it will be enforced if necessary. If you have nothing more constructive to say about it than what you have said so far, I suggest you stay away from here now. Fut.Perf.☼08:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If you think I'm guilty of something, you are free to report me at WP:ANI. But you're just proving the point that I made on my talk page: Wikipedia has become an openly hostile environment over the past several years. New contributions are almost instantly deleted, and discussions often turn into threats. This is why I don't write new contributions for Wikipedia anymore. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the File Upload wizard tool that is now active on Telugu Wiki
The Special Barnstar
Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thanks for your work with File Upload wizard tool and for helping its localisation at Telugu Wikipedia. It was activated on 19 Nov 2013 and has been used around 50 times already. I think it will greatly help in improving the maintainance of Fair use images on Telugu Wikipedia Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, good to hear it's proving useful for you over there. I wonder if you actually get most of your uploaders to fill in the fields correctly. Here on en-wp that's still a big issue. Fut.Perf.☼21:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I am helping the users to adopt this and populate the fields properly. It is still early days but some active users are using the tool properly after bit of orientation. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
“My” part of the conflict appears to die out (due to mediation). I do not know much about the entire situation with user talk: Andy Dingley (to where I was dragged without my consent) and do not object against any solution you deem necessary. Thanks for your attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback: Tony Santiago as an authority on Puerto Rican military history
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Tony Santiago. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. I do "whitespace removing" manually and by using an user script. Is there any bot available for this minor edits? For example, I give it names of 50 articles and it do it automatically in specified time periods. --Zyma (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know much about bots, I'm afraid. I'd also ask you to consider if such edits are really desirable. I may well be wrong, but I was under the impression that mass edits that consist entirely of cosmetic changes to the source text that have no visible effect on the form of the rendered page, such as removal of redundant whitespace, are actually frowned upon, as they needlessly clutter edit histories and take up server capacities unnecessarily. Maybe you could check with more knowledgeable folks at WP:VP/T or some other such noticeboard? Fut.Perf.☼14:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Small issues like "whitespace" directly affect style/formatting of the articles. When the number of them is low, they are not so important, but when there are a lot of them on a single article, they should be removed to keep article clean. Usually formatting, stylizing, and wikify process improves some aspects of the article. My editing logic and strategy on Wikipedia is to do both minor edits and non-minors. Because I think both method is necessary and every editor can involve in many useful tasks in Wikipedia. So some users should do edits like formatting, spelling, stylizing, fixing article's elements and etc. Thank you for your answer. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Re:Top-Entry Litter Box Image Deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kactapuss
Hello Future Perfect. I wanted to let you know that I received your communication and I am in the process of doing it properly this time. I have uploaded an image to Creative Commons and secured a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license from the copyright holder. I submitted a Declaration of Consent email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (which I now realize is not the correct address) however the article [Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries] boldly states not to submit to both addresses. In my case do you think it a good idea to submit my Declaration of Consent to commons@wikimedia.org? Kactapuss (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I came to that discussion because it was a group nomination involving also Greek genocide, which has been on my watchlist for many years. That said, I have never promised to not occasionally check up on what you are doing, if and when I feel like it, nor will I make such a promise now. If I recall correctly, the last few times I did such checks, it led to the discovery of some very important article flaws that I was fortunately able to fix. Fut.Perf.☼23:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Municipality has no authority to fly a flag as per laws of Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs)
I don't know about flags, but municipalities (both in Greece and elsewhere) certainly do commonly have coats of arms or logos. Other Greek municipalities, such as Athens, very certainly have those. And this one is apparently being used on the official website of the place, which should be good enough for us. Fut.Perf.☼21:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your warning. But I am currently editing the article and it is being attacked by other users without giving me a chance to modify the page ```` Also the edits I have made have saved Wiki from any legal issues since the proposed changes would violate Greek laws. No island of the Dodecanese is allowed to fly a flag other than the Greek flag. That change was necessary for legal purposes and retain the right to continue to revert so long as users attack the page with nonsensical images of some masonic logo posing as the island's flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs)
The Municipalities in Greece do not have separate flags. They have only special tagma or military flags. Flying any other flag in Greece is unheard of as the flags are not some kind of logo or symbol but a military banner. Also teh municipality website is a fraud as all Greek government web pages are at the url .gov.gr not www.megisti.gr which is some kind of Masonic group trying to fluff up the history the island. Also Greece has way to much class to come up with such a lousy flag....common really.
But if you have interest in this article then please help clarify the fabrications of history. The island is not mentioned by Strabo or any other in antiquity. It doesn't even have a single archaeological piece of evidence for it either.
You are making all these things up as you go along, are you? It is plain obvious to see that Greek municipalities routinely use logos like this – just go to any of their official websites and you'll find them, and we are showing them for many of the other towns and cities (look at Athens, Thessaloniki, Rhodes, etc.). You still seem to ignore the fact that I'm not talking about a "flag", but about a logo. And these other websites are also at addresses like "thessaloniki.gr" and "rhodes.gr". You are very strong with opinions but so far have shown a lack of any evidence – I'm not holding my breath that you'll actually produce those laws that you say prohibit towns from having symbols like this. Just as you didn't present any sources for your claims about the naming history, which were plainly false. And just because you didn't know that Strabo mentions Megiste, doesn't mean that he didn't. In case you failed to notice it, I actually included an exact reference and a link to where he does. Fut.Perf.☼22:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hallo FutPerf, I modified again the sentence that you removed yesterday. I want only to point out that Luigi Vittorio Bertarelli was only the editor of the monumental Guida d'Italia. Each volume has been compiled by the italian intellighentsia of that time. The man behind the info about Kastellorizo's culture was Giuseppe Gerola, one of the most important italian archeologists and art historians of the turn of the century, who did - among others - a field campaign in the 13 dodecannese islands in 1912. also the info about the women dress comes straight from him. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just idle curiosity, but would it really be in the form "Megistē"? I thought Doric would have -ā for -ē, generally. Fut.Perf.☼15:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Misa_de_Barcelona.JPG&diff=98867357&oldid=92674731){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Manuscript_of_Omnium_bonorum_plena.jpg&diff=98867475&oldid=91799378){kind=link}
![[85]](http://www.agonaskritis.gr/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ampad-skoulakis.jpg){kind=link}
