Re this, is this (see replies) typical of the behaviour you saw before? I don't know if they've been hacked or what response is appropriate, but I thought I'd ask you first rather than ignite a drama board. › Morteetalk02:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
is trying to add changes made by other socks blocked by you. Any help with another block or semi protection of the page would be welcome [4]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm aware of both Mercurius1 and Deji Olajide and their somewhat problematic editing activities, but I don't think either of them is Deucalionite, if you meant that. No. 108 certainly was, but that was almost 10 years ago, wasn't it? Fut.Perf.☼14:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, but please be more careful when adding images in the future. Almost all of the ones I saw you adding had to be reverted. In most cases, they were simply duplicates – the same image was already present on the page. In other cases, the images were of dubious copyright status. Please only add images that have plausible source/copyright info. Fut.Perf.☼07:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry! for that. I was adding images from wikidata using the code {{subst:#Property:P18}}. I checked my first two or three edits that was correct. Then started mass edit. Now, I have to be more careful. ~Yahya (✉) • 07:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
About Javito1993
Hi. I noticed you unblocked this Javito1993. Why exactly? He always do disruptive editing especially on Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia because he only updates new cases and deaths (bad things) but not recoveries (good thing). Prior to your writings on his talk page, he never responded to any warnings given, not even contested once. Hence, the lack of coordination led to the indef block. I want to ask you to reconsider the matter, since Javito now apparently uses desktop web in editing. At least have him partially blocked from editing the aforementioned article. I sincerely hope you would consider since the account was created after some of the Brisbane-originated IP addresses he used was blocked. And when the account got blocked, he returned to these IP addresses again, prompting some range blocks. At least have him blocked from editing the aforementioned page only. Thank you for your time. Flix11 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Javito1993 was previously via mobile, which means he probably never saw most or any of the talkpage messages where people raised objections to his edits, so his not responding to them, while irritating, wasn't really his fault. He has now promised to pay attention to such objections. Has he failed to do so? I don't in fact see that you have ever raised such objections to him with regard to the Indonesia page – nor do I see that his method of updating the page was in itself obviously disruptive. If you disagree about the way the page should be updated, I'd ask you to treat that as a regular content disagreement and, first of all, explain to him what exactly you object to and why. Fut.Perf.☼13:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I occasionally update on mobile web as well, and the notifs run perfectly well. This was his latest action. The numbers were added out of nowhere on 16:12 local, 9:12 UTC. He said this when I warned him for the lack of source written even on edit summary. FYI, BNPB updated on 18:17 (11:17 UTC). The COVID19.go.id was down on server and inaccessible while the KemenkesRI updated on 16:39 (9:39 UTC). The earliest per Google search (with keywords "covid positif 54517") was on 16:18 (9:18 local). So from my POV, he added those numbers from crystal ball. Flix11 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that was a looong time ago – can't say I remember anything about it. Apparently the uploader (who must have been involved with the subject) added the licensing info to their source website himself, I checked it, then he must have removed it again. But, seriously, since the image has never been actually used and was only intended for some draft that must have been spammy/autobiographical/coi or something and has been deleted for ages, I'd rather do a quiet file-prod, if you don't mind. Fut.Perf.☼20:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually I would.. Think he's potentially even notable now (may not have been in 2011), should surely be notable enough for Wikidata if it's not enough for Wikipedia.
Ok, I've moved it. Can you do something with it then? It's now sitting there uncategorized and unused, so probably likely to sink in the bottomless depths of Commons .... Fut.Perf.☼14:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Which banned user was it who misused my talk page to abuse you? (all I see is an unlinked ip) If it is sensitive, email--I am still a Functionary. And thanks for the revert. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that was WP:LTA/VXFC, always recognizable by their obsession about calendar issues and that Mohammed picture they were ranting about. Sorry, I have to block them so often I usually don't bother to write out their full name in the block log. Fut.Perf.☼07:21, 19 August 2021 (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.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
What in the appeal would need to be removed? Because most of it was relevant to proving a witch hunt. At no point did I ask for anyone else to be sanctioned. --Steverci (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend removing everything to do with Grandmaster and how and why he raised the complaint against you. You were sanctioned for your activity, which is your responsibility alone, and any lifting of the sanctions will be dependent solely on people's confidence in your pattern of activity going to be different in the future. "Witchhunt" is simply not an argument. Fut.Perf.☼16:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP:NOTTHEM and would not mention anybody else in an ordinary situation. But shouldn't it be relevant that the AE report creator had previously gloated about gaming the system to get editors they disagree with sanctioned? --Steverci (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how. I didn't see provocation or gaming from his side leading up to the edits for which you were sanctioned – in at least one of the articles in question, you jumped into an article in which G. had been editing and which you had never touched before, immediately engaging in revert-warring with him and in pretty glaringly tendentious/disruptive edits of your own. Who was "hunting" anybody there? In any case, you brought forward that "witchhunt" argument during that last appeal attempt and by the time I shut it down it was already apparent you weren't getting any traction on it, so why would you try that same tack again? But you know what, do what you must. If you want to appeal again, do it as best as you can. It won't be me making any determination on whether what you're doing is within the bounds of the topic ban or not, this time. But don't tell me I didn't warn you. Fut.Perf.☼21:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
In hindsight it was clearly gaming/baiting because he waited until after making three reverts[12][13][14] just before finally going to the talk within the same hour of the third revert.[15] I had thought it was odd he didn't go to the talk page sooner when he was the one changing the last consensus version, and now it's clear he needed several reverts to sell his edit warring case (just as how he described in his mailing list a decade ago). I brought up the witch hunt again because there was a lot of information not included before, and that time it was to appeal my ban. I never actually requested anyone to be sanctioned in my appeal. But just to potentially save the noticeboard's time, please hear this out. In the time since my ban was reinstated, uninvolved third-party users have agreed that Grandmaster was pushing too much undue detail and most of the content I was reverting has now been removed by a talk consensus. Surely this means my reverts on the article weren't deserving of a topic ban, or at least an indefinite topic ban is excessively harsh?
Oh and Brandmeister, one of Grandmaster's old mailing list pupils, just happened to wander upon the Lachin talk page and vote for the same thing as Grandmaster despite never editing the Lachin article before. And both of them just happened to have made groundless sock puppet accusations against me within the past few months.[16][17] Yes, there's definitely no suspicious "hunt" going on here at all. --Steverci (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain how it's tendentious/disruptive when uninvolved editors later agreed with my edits? And are you going to acknowledge the glaringly obvious example of gaming/meatpuppetry I pointed out? --Steverci (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm making another noticeboard appeal, as you said I was entitled to do, and officially notifying you of it, as you wanted me to have done last time. --Steverci (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Not one that would really cover all of his IPs, as they are distributed across too many different ranges, but I've applied some local ones. Thanks for keeping a watch out. Fut.Perf.☼19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The funny thing is that I'm not monitoring the sock's edits. They are following my edits. And when you block them, usually an old account comes in to restore at least a part of the sock's edits[18]. At GA: the sock's edits were reinstated twice in 24 hours [19][20] (1RR violation). Effectively, the sock occupies the ecological niche of putting forward the hard line of a narrative and after it gets reverted, others may sweep in to preserve part of it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Alexikoua is manually moving pages. I assume that he chose Panos Bitzilis because he can't revert Cercok back to Panos Bitsilis [21]. An admin should provide some oversight.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
I wanted to explain my good faith edits for the Byzantine Empire which you reverted:
Byzantium, as the wiki link shows, is an ancient city which inspired historians to invent a new name for the medieval Roman Empire. Calling the Byzantine Empire as synonymous with Byzantium is like saying the British Empire is synonymous with the name Londinium.
Separately, the second paragraph talks about the historiography without actually calling it out. The name Byzantine Empire has roots from conflict in medieval politics after the Franks claimed authority derived from to the Roman Empire in 800AD under the Donation of Constantine and that continues to be a conflict here on Wikipedia and that is debated by modern historians as it distorts history. There is a entire paragraph explaining it's a made up term: what's wrong with saying this is a historiographical term? Pointing out modern historians use this term to help us understand complexity is relevant to a reader who would otherwise think it was a different empire.
No, calling the Byzantine Empire "Byzantium" is not like calling the British Empire "Londinium". Because the one is done, in English, and the other isn't. It's as simple as that. It's not our business to judge whether that naming practice is appropriate; it's part of the English language.
And no, sending the reader on a wild goose chase to an article about "historiography" as if they could find something relevant to this article there, which they can't, is still not useful. Fut.Perf.☼21:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Ηρόδοτος
Βλέπω δηλώνεις ότι έχεις καλή γνώση της νέας ελληνικής και μέτρια γνώση της της αρχαίας. Θα ήθελα να μου εξηγήσεις στα νέα ελληνικά τι κάνω λάθος σε αυτό που διαβάζω.
Αναφέρομαι στο Ηροδότου Ιστορίαι 6 44 1 Aeolic order (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You think you're in a position to challenge me to a test? Stop being ridiculous. Anyway, this all shows you still haven't got the message. I'm not going to discuss the reading of that passage of Herodotus with you, in English or Greek or whatever language, because your reading of Herodotus is of no significance whatsoever. You really need to finally make an effort to wrap your brain about this simple fact: nobody on Wikipedia cares about what you think the significance of that passage is, or whether you read it correctly. What Wikipedia cares about is only, exclusively what reputable scholars have written about it. And now go away; characters like you are not welcome on this page. Don't post here again. Fut.Perf.☼21:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello Fut.Perf., warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!.
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Alas, Phlsph7 immediately reverted it. His reason per edit summary: "that" is normally used for defining clauses.
I think this statement is prescriptive prejudice (and the revert reeks of ownership of article...). "Which" is actually easier, as it can be used either "restrictively" or "non-restrictively" ("restrictive" or "defining" being the old-fashioned term).
Hello. I realise your involvement in an earlier Kosovo discussion will prevent your ability to act. I thought you might like to know however that I have made a complaint about one editor and I adduced one of your contributions within the post. Here is a quick link. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. The trouble is that rhythmic mode isn't really an article about the entire notation system of the Notre Dame period, but (nominally, at least) only about that one defining theoretical concept underlying it, the modes as such. If it was an article about modal notation as a whole, it would be easier to integrate. As it stands, the existence of those "silbenstriche" in that repertoire is such a minor, arcane detail it is really difficult to find a place for it. The current article doesn't even mention the far more prominent role of the other type of vertical stroke, the "divisio modi" strokes. It really makes little sense to cram a mention of the exceptional "silbenstriche" into the article as long as it's not even explained what they are an exception of. (For my own reference: Apel, Notation der polyphonen Musik 900–1600, p.254) Fut.Perf.☼14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hm. Option one is to mention divisio modi in rhythmic mode to justify mentioning silbenstrich, but if it would feel out of place, then that's not a great option. I suppose the other is just to retarget silbenstrich to rhythmic mode without mentioning it in the text, since that'll probably put any inquiring reader approximately where they want to go. Silbenstrich has so few views (almost all recent views seem related to the AfD) it's almost immaterial, really. ♠PMC♠ (talk)14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Notify on formal complaint
Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, I could like to inform you that the Wikimedia Foundation's Office's duty is to investigate cases where the conduct of the users as a whole complies with the Wikimedia Foundation's community culture standards which were adopted by its Board. The Office monitors and investigates cases where toxic behavior by users on the Wikimedia projects negatively impacts the participation and the ability of the Wikimedia projects to collect, share, and disseminate free knowledge. Once the investigation, which may extend beyond any individual complaints received and can include user conduct spanning several years, is concluded, the Office will take the appropriate measures in addressing any violations of these standards by its users and ensure that such a hostile and toxic behavior won't be repeated, support any users who have been targeted by it, and help set clear expectations for all contributors by ensuring that they maintain a strictly respectful tone towards other users, and promote inclusivity, and a healthier culture of discourse. I could like to inform you that a formal complaint is being filed at the Wikimedia Foundation's office regarding your misconduct and toxic attitude against other users, including the writer. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)12:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The misconduct is yours. You inserted a blatantly false factual claim about the contents of a primary source, with two secondary sources ostensibly in support, both of which quite blatantly failed to substantiate your claim. And you reacted without even a hint of self-awareness of how deeply disruptive that edit was. I am not going to pretend I have any patience with that kind of behavior. Fut.Perf.☼15:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Assuming that you are correct in the content dispute and the other's edit was wrong: does that make it right for you to insult them? Does disagreeing on a small content with them, permits the use of non-neutral and insulting edit summaries such as this one: [26] and calling them "incompetent editors" and more? WP:CIVILITY doesn't state anywhere that you can! Contrary: it tells you to stop such behaviors. Your loss of patience here is amusing: I didn't even revert you, in fact told you that I could refrain from reinstating the edit in the case you were right. But instead of acknowledging that I have recently contributed more than 1.000kb of text and you reverted me just once for 4kb of text and you started insulting me outright just for that 4kb of text! So much for an incompentent editor, indeed!
In our previous encounter, you insulted me again when I've kindly asked you to avoid quoting (or strike) [27] your past insults towards me, but you didn't comply, showing that you do not give a damn shit: you will either insult, or quote past insults at every opportunity, disregarding Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and rules: you have in fact made sure to insult me every damn time we are crossing paths!
Really, where is your apology from 3 years ago? When others reported you at the AE for insulting me for my health disorder, you refused to ever offer an apology! You chose to remain silent and then resume your toxic attitude against me once the AE spotlight was over. Sorry but now it is too late for excuses. Arguing with you on your talk page ain't going to change anything, that's for sure. At the Office they will check our past incidents and I have made sure to help them by giving to them our diffs for yesterday's incident and more. They will see my comments, and your comments, and see which one of the two is really violating WP:CIVILITY repeatedly and without trying to remedy themselves. if you are certain you have done nothing wrong, then I am sure you have nothing to worry about. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)16:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll apologize for the "incompetent editor" if you will apologize for your careless misrepresentation of sources. That wasn't a "minor content" disagreement; it was a big fat act of source falsification on your part, and you have as yet failed to show any regret for it. Everything else I said about it was fully justified criticism of your editing; focussed on content as it should be. As for the incidents three years ago, I never had anything to apologize for, that's why I didn't and that's why I won't. If I remember correctly, I was calling you out for some objectively disruptive behavior on your part; if that behavior was, as you then claimed, caused by some medical condition of yours, I had no way of knowing, and no reason to care.
And one final thing: Those last two words of yours, "good day", were more impolite than anything I might ever have said to you. You evidently don't care if I'm having a good day or not (and there's no reason why you should either), so don't say it if you don't mean it. If there's one thing I really cannot stand it's this kind of tacky, passive-aggressive pseudo-politeness. So, at last, spare us all those insincere "sorry"s and "I'm afraid"s and whatnot. Just cut it out. Fut.Perf.☼20:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Question on toponyms
Hello,
I have a question. I can't remember where exactly or which editors it was that said or wrote it, but some time back going from memory, there was mention of a set formula agreed to in wiki many years ago as to how to place Macedonian/Bulgarian toponyms to villages in Greek Macedonia, where applicable. If you have the link to where that was decided (so i can refer to if the need arises), it would be much appreciated. I have created some articles of recent date and a few will probably need those placenames added.Resnjari (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Socks of Deucalionite
That account is removing "discrimination" [28] content just like an IP removed the same "racist" content some time ago [29]
. As can be seen, the IP is located in New Jersey where previous confirmed IP socks of Deucalionite were located. The same content was removed in the past by several confirmed sock accounts of Deucalionite (e g. [30]). That account's name is related to the Pickelhaube helmet. Related to the same helmet is the username of Piccco, it is a short name used for the hemlet. That account made edits that change the origin of the personal name Ariana from Persian to Mediterrenean [31][32], sth that had earlier been made by an IP [33] that is located in New Jersey. You might want to take a look. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, I saw your username while surfing on Wikipedia and I really liked it. It is very interesting name. I just want to ask: This name that I have difficulty in translating into my own language how did you come up with it? I'm really curious about this. Ata Barış (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, please advice.
Hi. I hope you're doing well. I am reaching you because you were concerned about other users injecting the logic of wartime ethnic retribution and nationalist tit-for-tat right into Wikipedia.[34]. Recently I noted that the same exact sentence in the Lachin article. So I rephrased it [35] to remove wartime ethnic retribution logic from the article. However, other user reverted my edit[36] basically saying that this is the correct way how it should be attributed[37].
Moreover, I identified wartime ethnic retribution logic in the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article: The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against Armenian civilian areas in Stepanakert.. Initially I tried to paraphrase it to make it neutral. Later I removed it because I identified that it is WP:OR, not supported by the majority of the sources and violates WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral. However, other user insisting to keep this statement in the article. I made a bold comment[38] on the talk-page, which seems to be ignored.
I am not sure what to do, shall I take this cases, which were already discussed and commented by admins as unacceptable, to the dispute resolutions? Can you advice the way forward please? Thanks in advance! Abrvagl (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, I don't think we've had a pleasure, but it's nice to meet you. I made a Finale pdf for Josquin's article (File:Ave Maria... Virgo serena.png), though the formatting is much less ideal than your very well made File:Josquin Domine ne in furore.svg. I was wondering if you might have any interest in remaking my Ave Maria sheet music with the proper notation and formatting you used for Domine ne in furore. I have been working on the Josquin article for quite a while at FAR, so this updated image would be a welcome improvement. Best – Aza24 (talk)18:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm going to assume from your silence that you don't have time to consider the request. Take care – Aza24 (talk)19:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, I hope you're doing well. I saw your edit to Kinburn spit which you claimed corrected the length and width of the spit from that of the entire peninsula. I'm just curious though, where did you get the information from? I looked for a while myself, but all I could find was a mention in an article by The Guardian which claims that the spit is a "25-mile (40km) stretch of sand," which supports the original information that you changed. You are probably correct in your edit though, because this mention on the spit was just a small part of a larger article, making it possible that the info was taken from Wikipedia itself before your edit, but I currently have no way to know. Your edit is what is currently stated in the article, but it has no citation, so I just was curious were you got it from, and if it was just by looking at a digital map, that's fine by me, I just wanted to know. Thanks! Johnson524 (Talk!) 15:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, basically I just measured it out on Google Maps – I don't suppose that counts as prohibited "WP:OR" as long as it's just about simple geographic facts. My impression is that the terms for the "spit" and the "peninsula" frequently get confused in the literature – for instance, the page from "Encyclopedia of Ukraine" we are listing under external links also speaks of the "spit" but is clearly about the whole peninsula. I wonder how many of the recently added statements about military events are also really about that – I'm no expert on military matters but it seems not very plausible to me that so many military activities should be taking place on a a barren, flat piece of sand that is only a few 100 meters wide and offers no infrastructure, no cover and no shelter, as opposed to the larger peninsula with its settlements and woods. Maybe our terminology that distinguishes between the "spit" and the "peninsula" is actually not shared by the wider literature at all and we should really merge the two articles. Fut.Perf.☼16:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more actually! As far as I am aware, all of the sources I have found and added recently specifically say "Kinburn Spit", but in some reports also talk about landings taking place in villages near the end of the peninsula (at least in one which I didn't end up using as a citation for this reason). News and media have really used the two terms interchangeably, making it pretty hard to differentiate if military operations taking place 'on the spit' are really there. I suppose it could be done with a good bit of extra effort into verifying each claim, but as it stands now, if there is a way to redirect the (stub) 2022 Russian Invasion section in the Kinburn Peninsula article to the Kinburn Spit one, I think it would largely be a beneficial move, also seeing that the news and media mainly tend to prefer using the words "Kinburn Spit" over "Kinburn Peninsula" when writing interchangeably about the two (judging by a quick google search). As for the original matter, thank you for specifically finding the measurements for the spit (and not the peninsula) for the article, and for following up with me so quickly my question about it. I really appreciate it 😁 Johnson524 (Talk!) 07:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Croatian protections
Hi, I've been looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely semi-protected articles recently, mostly looking articles that have been protected for a very long time but possibly don't need protection any more. The first few hundred are mostly racial slurs, active politicians, etc, the sort of article you'd expect to be protected forever or at least a very long way into the future. I've just got to some of your 2009 protections of articles about Croatian politics which were apparently in response to a particular sockmaster which you marked "please do not unprotect". I'll leave them alone but I wondered if you'd have a look and see if the protections are still necessary. I'm happy if they are, I'd just like to know that they've been looked at in the last ~14 years and not forgotten. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?19:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Future Perfect at Sunrise, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Moops⋠T⋡16:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm Chiagozie Elobuike. I just noticed that you removed what I put because you claimed that the Greek letter Stigma doesn't have a cpaital form. Stigma does have a capital form. Here.
(Uppercase: Ϛ, lowercase: ϛ) Chiagozie Elobuike (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a somewhat complicated and confusing story. I know there is an uppercase form encoded in Unicode. But that Unicode character isn't really what this article is about. The article is about the use of the ligature σ+τ = ϛ in historical Greek writing and early printing. This ligature form was only ever used in lowercase. The Unicode character isn't meant for use as this ligature, even though – confusingly – its name suggests a connection. It's for encoding an historically different character that happens to look the same, and which is used for writing the number 6 in historical writing. In this function, we treat it in our article on digamma, where it historically belongs. In that character, too, the uppercase form is decidedly marginal, but it does historically exist, if only as a kind of typographical afterthought. Fut.Perf.☼08:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Byzantine Empire
Hi
I discussed this in the Talk page to make it easier I'll write it here:
I came across text that was very similar to what is written in a source.
Below is my quotation from the source and second the current text your reverted back to.
James, Liz (2010). A Companion to Byzantium. Chichester: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-4051-2654-0. P.5
“But from the start, there were two major differences between the Roman and Byzantine empires: Byzantium was, for much of its life, a Greek-speaking empire, orientated towards Greek, not Latin culture; and it was a Christian empire”
Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
This sentence has been around, in one form or another, since 2011. Its first version, as far as I can reconstruct, was introduced by User:Swarm in this edit [40] (Byzantium, however, was distinct from ancient Rome, in that it was predominantly Greek-speaking and was influenced by Greek, as opposed to Latin, culture), followed a short time later by a rewording by myself [41] (It is today distinguished from ancient Rome proper insofar as it was characterised by Christian rather than pagan culture, and predominantly Greek rather than Latin-speaking.) Ever since then, it's been fiddled with every other month and has slowly morphed into what it is now. From the beginning, it was quite sufficiently independent from the wording of the source to stay well clear of WP:CLOP, although I now see one of its parts (the "oriented towards" phrase) somehow took a turn back towards echoing the source wording more closely (actually, I now find that was done only a few days after my own edit, by a notorious ban-evading sock – I should have been more watchful about that one [42].) In any case, I don't think this one "oriented towards" phrase is a problem in terms of close paraphrasing; all the rest of the sentence is still quite sufficiently different both in terms of wording and content.
About the rest of your attempts at rewording that sentence, I'm afraid I'm simply not seeing what problem you are trying to solve. In fact you seem to be alone in seeing a problem there, and to me at least it's been looking like you've been producing proposal after proposal up to the point where everybody else has become too bored to respond to them, so interpreting the silence as a silent consensus for your latest versions is probably not quite the right thing. I'd recommend just giving it a rest. Fut.Perf.☼17:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. It was not complete silence. Both @Furius and @Iazyges voiced support for proposed changes. @Diannaa gave her opinion in the Talk and said it is too much like the source I called out and pointed out above.
Is it also not a problem that the sources that this statement came from (1) Only say Christianity, not Eastern Orthodox (2) Clearly distinguish Greek language? And, thanks for pointing it out now, the original as well the edit you made. That is to mean they also says "Christian" not Eastern Orthodox, and Greek language over Latin which is *exactly* what I am saying in the issue.
Why don't we just revert to the 7 September 2011 version you wrote with the sources?
It is today distinguished from ancient Rome proper insofar as it was characterised by Christian rather than pagan culture, and predominantly Greek rather than Latin-speaking.
From a substantive point of view, the only "additional" change with my proposal is it contrasts it with the earlier Roman Empire to avoid comparison to the Western Roman Empire @DeCausa rightly points out. The reference to Constantinople, which all the sources say and was in the most recent version so not added by me. (It's also in line with the forthcoming book by a leading historian: https://www.amazon.com/New-Roman-Empire-History-Byzantium/dp/0197549322).
And this is what it is currently which is being defended as correct and long standing:
Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians prefer to differentiate the Byzantine Empire from Ancient Rome as it was centered on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture, and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
I am just trying to move us forward so will give it a rest if I have to, but right now this is becoming a interesting example of Wikipedia epistemology. Elias (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, there isn't a problem to fix that needs "moving forward" on. "Byzantine" does not include the Western Empire so "integration of Christianity" linked to that article doesn't work as a differentiator. You linked to Ancient Rome - that article includes the Western Empire. QED. You could argue that "Ancient Rome" is ambiguos, but the point of the sentence is what's distinctive about Byzantium compared to what came before. The current sentence does that; yours doesn't. DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Every source that was attributed to that sentence lists "Christianity" as the differentiator. No one said " Eastern Orthodox".
Separately, if we compare it to the earlier Roman Empire, which if you look more closely is what I wrote, it contrasts it to the pagan/emperor worship policies that had historians unanimously agree distinguish Constantine's New Roman Empire that we called Byzantium and meets your "point of the sentence". Elias (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks- how to use NPOV language
Hello, I've recently gotten interested in editing Liancourt Rocks-related articles (specifically changing the tone to make these articles more NPOV as needed). I decided to reach out to you as the Contentious Topics notice on the Liancourt Rocks said that you were familiar with the subject.
While editing articles related to these islands, should I use "Liancourt Rocks" at all times, or is it appropriate to use "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" under certain circumstances? If so, what are the circumstances where I should use "Dokdo" or "Takeshima" as opposed to "Liancourt Rocks"? Also, should "East Sea" or "Sea of Japan" be used (does the East Sea/Sea of Japan naming depend on circumstances too)?
Hello, I've changed it a little bit. If there are any further issues, please let me know.
Thanks. AlexBachmann (talk)15:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
That's still far from a good RfC statement. You need to clearly separate the actual question from your personal argument. You can put the argumentative portions into your own !vote paragraph, but it should stay out of the shared RfC header area, which is for the question only. Fut.Perf.☼15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, strategically speaking, you may want to reconsider the wording of "should be removed from every mention of Kosovo", because it is setting up an all-or-nothing choice, which may be off-putting to commenters. Fut.Perf.☼15:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I saw your edit here. It's taken me about an hour of Googling and reading Wikipedia to decipher what your edit summary means (I don't regret this, this is how I piecemeal learn how Wikipedia works). I'm sure the summary makes immediate sense to those immersed and versed in the ways of Wikipedia administration but for future edits in this campaign could I suggest that you use an edit summary along the lines of 'remove kosovo-note template as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_2#Template:Kosovo-note'? I think this would help those like me and others with still less experience and determination, which I estimate at 99% of Wikipedia visitors. Citruswinter (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Nuke the whole question if you think appropriate
Appreciate your an others work on the RD, delete the whole question if you think best even if i've responded. fiveby(zero) 17:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks, but are you talking about the "Hexagesimal time measurement" thread on the Humanities desk? I didn't think that the person who created that thread was the banned user in question, so I don't see a reason to remove the thread as a whole (actually, it sounds like a rather interesting one). Or am I missing something? Fut.Perf.☼20:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is what i was referring to. I can't keep track of all the RD trolls (but am very glad someone does), all i know is there is one out there with some kind of calendar obsession. There are some with an opinion that questions shouldn't be deleted once responded to, just letting you know not to hesitate at all if it's just me who has responded. The question is interesting and hopefully leads to some article work, which is what the RD should be all about. Gives those of us who can't write a way to contribute. fiveby(zero) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
What proof do you have of socking? Is very Greek IP a sock according to you? The IP editor has made valid points, which you seem unable or unwilling to refute, which would explain your presence here. Khirurg (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't engage in any discussion per WP:DENY. This IP and all other related ones have been appearing on & off to support or oppose certain edits and editors. The pattern is very consistent with what has happened again and again. This is not a new user, but an old one who is following certain editors to oppose them and others to support them e.g. they always appear to be following Alltan to revert them 62.74.55.253(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)[43]. The same IP range has definitely appeared among Deji's various socks. It is worth having a discussion at the relevant admin board as to why certain editors always tend to support or be supported by such IPs. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It's very convenient to label every inconvenient Greek IP as a sock of Deji. Or maybe it could be that POV pushing by certain editors, such as Alltan, is drawing more and more attention. Feel free to have a discussion at the relevant admin board. But it will be a long discussion. Khirurg (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
There's an account which is targeting the article Markopoulo Mesogaias and removing information about Arvanites in the area: 4 reverts [45][46][47][48], while in the 5th revert they again removed academic sources and copy/pasted a google translate version of a non-academic post in Greek from a local website[49] about "Albanian-speaking continental tribes of Greek origin, who lived in the area of northern Epirus". I had already warned them about 3RR before 3RR violation: (User talk:KaragouniS#3RR) and I tried to have a discussion about bibliography with them (User talk:Maleschreiber#Do it).--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Φίλε μου τι κάνεις; Σε θυμήθηκα αμέσως γιατί κάποτε με έιχες ρωτήσει για τα μουστοκούλουρα που φτιάχνει ο Δαρεμάς στην πλατεία της πόλης (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KaragouniS/Archive_2#Arvanites_and_Marcopoulo), βλέπεις αυτά είναι τα καλά του να έχεις καλή μνήμη :D
Λοιπόν, τώρα στο θέμα για το οποίο ήρθα, πού είναι το αρθρο του Δήμου Μαρκοπούλου, επειδή υπάρχει ένα μεγάλο ζήτημα.
-Πρώτον, το κομμάτι της Ιστορίας είναι όντως μετάφραση από την επίσημη σελίδα του Δήμου οποία έγινε απο εμένα, όχι μέσω Google Translate οπως λέει ο αποπάνω. Δεύτερον, το κομμάτι αυτό είναι γραμμένο με βάση την βιβλιογραφία που παρέθεσα και κατά πρώτον δεν είναι αντικείμενο πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας του Δήμου αλλά ένα γενικό ιστορικό ρεζουμέ βασισμένο στην εκδομένη και παρεχόμενη βιβλιογραφία η οποία ανήκει σε τρίτους και εαν θυμάμαι καλά ΔΕΝ χρήζει περιορισμού επειδή δεν είναι αυτούσιο παρμένο απο τα βιβλία που έγραψαν. Τέλος παντως, εάν έχω κάπου λαθος, πες μου πως να το διορθώσω ώστέ να μπορέσει να ξαναμπεί στην σελίδα
-Δεύτερον και πιο σημαντικό. Υπάρχει μια ομάδα απο χρήστες (συγκεκριμένα οι Maleschreiber, Nishjan και Alltan, πιθανόν και άλλοι) οι οποίοι συστηματικά μπαίνουν σε άρθρα που αφορούν τους Αρβανίτες και ειτέ αφαιρουν Ελληνικές πηγές τις οποίες αντικαθιστούν με Αλβανικές (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolaos_Kriezotis&diff=1179176822&oldid=1179175560) ή άλλες που έγκειται κοντά στο εθνικιστικό ατεκμηρίωτο Αλβανικό αφήγημα ότι οι Αρβανίτες δεν είναι Αλβανόφωνο φύλο εξ Ηπείρου αλλά Εξελλένησμένοι Αλβανοί, το οποίο δεν αναφέρεται στο άρθρο Arvanites με την μορφή την οποία οι συγκεκριμένοι χρήστες υποστηρίζουν, όπως θα έχεις δει και στο talk page της σελίδας. Τώρα δεν ξέρω πως να αντιμετωπίσω αυτήν την τοξικότητα, κυρίως σαν αρβανίτης και εγώ να βλέπω ότι άνθρωποι που δεν έχουν καμία σχέση με τον λαό μου να προσπαθούν με μανίας να επιβάλουν την απόψη τους μέσω edit warring και απειλών για ban στο talk page μου από χρήστες που εμφανώς συννενοούνται μεταξύ τους.
Όπως καταλαβαίνεις, πρακτικά ζητάω οδηγίες για το τι να κάνω ή τι να μην κάνω απο τον πλέον καθ'ύλην αρμόδιο όπως εσύ σαν διαχειριστής. Ευχαριστώ εκ των προτέρων για την απαντήση σου
KaragouniS : Chat 17:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Four things: the passage you added was indeed a copyright violation – it doesn't matter if the source text is marked as copyrighted on that website; whoever wrote it for the municipality holds the copyrights for it, whether they explicitly claim them or not. You can't simply copy it over like that. Independently of the copyright issue, this kind of copying also leads to very poor encyclopedia writing. Just as one example: the passage you inserted maintained the entire perspective of the original throughout, including referring to Greece as "our country". That's of course not possible in the voice of Wikipedia. Additionally, even if you were to fully reword the passage to make it your own text and fully in Wikipedia's voice, you still couldn't use that website as a source for it, because it doesn't qualify as a reliable source.
The other thing: whatever you feel about the editing of those other editors, in the present case there clearly wasn't an issue of them "removing Greek sources" and "adding Albanian ones". Leaving aside the fact that there isn't anything wrong about adding Albanian sources, the only person who removed a properly sourced statement in the present case was you – you removed the well-sourced statement about the Arvanite history of the place, which happened to be sourced to a German academic. Maleschreiber later added another source, which happened to be a Greek one [51], and which you then removed again. Why?
Third, the notion that Arvanites were – in terms of their historical origin – "Hellenized Albanians" is not a "nationalist Albanian narrative" as you put it, but the unanimous and entirely straightforward consensus of all the academic literature, including the Greek academic literature. I'm sorry if that is not what you like to hear, but that's a fact. In all these years, nobody has ever come up with any decent sources for any alternative view. However, I don't see how this issue is at all relevant to the specific passage in this article.
Lastly, these days it's come to be considered rather inappropriate to hold discussions on the English Wikipedia in non-English languages. I know we did it a lot more back "in the old days", and I still think it's ok for friendly banter, but it certainly shouldn't be done to have discussions involving complaints about other users, especially about users of a different nationality, if the use of a non-English language could be perceived as an attempt at excluding them. Fut.Perf.☼19:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Well sorry then, I can express myself better by using it since it's my native tongue so since I knew you can speak it I felt comfortable enough using it. I did a small edit in the article, specifically linking "Albanian" settlers to "Arvanites", I hope they won't throw me to the dogs for that. Thanks again for your input over this. KaragouniS : Chat 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to write a well-thought response, Fut. Perf. I have added Sasse (1991) again. KaragouniS should read more works published by reputable journals and publishing houses about Arvanites - mostly by Greek historians. There's an unambiguous consensus which doesn't include any "controversy" that groups like the Arvanites are just descendants of medieval Albanian settlers and this is unrelated to modern identity construction.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed you have modified the Korean language template to remove the context parameter. Please take care to also update the corresponding documentation as well. NM19:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Byzantine Empire Featured article review
I have nominated Byzantine Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Happy Adminship
Have a Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Hey there Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'd like to wish you a happy adminship anniversary! Congratulations on your special day, and thank you for all the contributions you've made.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hi, you reverted my edit on this page because the Greek page was not a suitable translational material. I'm curious why so as not to make the same mistake again. The Greek page is much longer and contains several sources not found on the English one. Why don't you think it's a good target? ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reaching out. My main concern about the Greek page is that it is entirely written from within the religious POV on which the veneration of these saints is based, i.e. taking their alleged historical existence for granted, presenting their lives as if they were actual biographies, and describing the story of their "discovery" in the 1950s as actual miracles and feats of religious revelation. It also gives ample space to lurid descriptions of their barbarous tortures at the hands of the evil Turks, straight through literal quotations of the victim's own narrative after their deaths (!) (i.e. what 20th-century people reported the saints revealed to them in their dreams), all of this as if it was actual historical source material.The text also seems to be a fairly close paraphrase of its main source, the pemptousia.gr webpage. This carries a double problem: first, it would carry over a WP:Close paraphrasing issue into our article if we translated or paraphrased the text again; at the same time, the web page is hardly a reliable source, certainly not about claims of history. We don't really have a lot of actual reliable source material about these as far as I'm aware, at least I didn't find more than to support the brief article we have now. Fut.Perf.☼12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the full response; glad the revert was because I don't speak Greek and not because I've been tagging stuff poorly all along! I appreciate you taking the time to review the Greek article and remove my tag. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you
Back in 2006, you posted on the Talk:Armenian–Parthian War, "The article is terribly written, but I've unfortunately not found a good target to redirect it to yet".
Yeah, it looks like the brief section in that new article is already more substantial and better sourced than the old stub, so I guess redirecting makes sense. I'll do that. Fut.Perf.☼18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
