User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 19

careful !

I saw your last comment here, [1] . Ceha does not accept such language, or maybe does not accept it from me. Therefore I strongly recommend that you be very careful what you type, otherwise you might get topic banned just like I got topic banned. My reason for removing the map was VERY VERY reasonable and civil, as you yourself have concluded that it is better to remove the map. User Direktor also agrees with me.

I strongly urge that you reconsider my topic ban and maybe consider giving it to Ceha for some time, for this obviously stupid map. If the map can stay, then I can make a map of US states, divided into six arbitrary entities, no? If my work infuriates people, I'll get them topic banned. How does that sound? (LAz17 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)).

I do not know about you, but you told me that I am not able to exercise this criticism in a constructive fashion... I bloody well am, but the problem is that when I talk to a wall there is no point... then constructive fashion is removed... when I repeat the simple thing to ceha the 50th time, and he still does not get it then I feel that he should be banned for provoking me. Apparently he does not fuck other users around like he does it with me. Even when I tell him in constructive fashion that his edit was wrong, he goes about attacking me insisting that it is correct... here is an example, in the central bosnia canton... he attacked me for removing, and then after he fixed it he again attacked me. See this, and tell me how it is not grounds for punishment? [2] I strongly feel that this place is biased towards favoring ceha... so many of his contributions have been croatian POV nationalism. Much of his edits are very questionable. I on the other hand have always worked towards contributing and improving articles in a non-POV manner. I do have a low tolerance for bullshit though. Ceha knows this and he provokes me on purpose. Every possible discussion that we have had he has prolonged on purpose, pointlessly, only to annoy me. (LAz17 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)).

Seriously, give it a rest. This isn't helping. By the way, a topic ban typically applies to all name spaces, including other users' talk pages. I haven't so far intervened in your continuing discussion on Direktor's page, and I won't do anything here, but please be aware that, especially insofar as you are still making negative comments on Ceha, these are all breaches of the topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Western Asia

Future Perfect, if you get a chance and are interested, there are a couple of editors who are pushing a POV edit in the table listing government types. In the row for Iraq, they're pushing the word "occupied" instead of simply listing the type of government that Iraq runs under. I've requested comments (none have arrived), but pushing "occupied" in a column that is just asking for government type seems to be pretty heavy-handed anti-American POV. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, please explain events truthfully rather than duplicitously. I haven't 'pushed' this at all. I added it once, because I thought it should be recorded, and I haven't done anything since you removed it (and that doesn't imply that I will not respond to your discussion when I have time). Another editor happened to agree with this edit, as can be seen in the history. That doesn't qualify the characterization of events you gave this editor here. Try and be more honest in future please, if you value goodwill. ^Izzedine 12:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

hound

The information is entirely valid, perhaps badly phrased. And it's not my research. Do you have any idea about the subject at all? Probably not - but you feel entitled to remove swathes of information in entirely inappropriate and unjustified ways, and then threaten those who would preserve the integrity of Wikipedia articles. Great job. No, really. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your post on my talk page

I've replied, but note the P.S. section of my response. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

response

Direktor issued a response to you on my talk page. Do see it. Do note what he said, quote-Čeha keeps making maps that are generalized in such a way they are perceived as biased, and its perfectly possible his goal is to push a Croatian nationalist POV-unquote. I hope that now you understand where the problems are coming from. (LAz17 (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)).

one year? - where do you get that?

Your quote about me - Sorry, he's had enough chances to raise his concern in such a brief and neutral and polite way. If he didn't manage to do that in over a year, why would he now? - .
I find that this is very wrong, what you write here. For much of the last year the dispute between ceha and me centered around the ethnic map of bosnia from 1991. You started this. You deleted a map that he had up... a few users had complained, but ceha uploaded it anyway. I proved that it was fraud, an edit of belgrade's 1991 map. That is when we descended into the conflict regarding maps that he made on the basis of this fraud map that was deleted. For about 10 months of the last 12 years we sporadically argued about it... alas it was to no avail. Then in the last two months direktor helped acheive major progress by helping mediate the discussion. Ceha no longer was able to stall the discussion by talking about problems with the source... previously he stalled the discussion for months just because of the source, and the fact that there was no mediator. It is in the last two months that the issues between me and ceha expanded. I removed some of his biased crap. Sorry, there is no other explanation for some certain things that he did - like inflating the number of croatians by 4000 on the central bosna canton page. I have always been civil and have not had any such problems with any user as I have with ceha. Ceha is simply a maniac when it comes to mapping. His maps are nationalist propaganda. I think that you should really double check where this started... when he took this map [3] and reproduced this fraud which you deleted... [4] as you see I saved that evidence. From one fraud he creates new fraud, like he did with another image that you deleted at the same time - [5] . On the other hand we have more plausible things that show just how outrageous this nationalist propaganda is... the real map so that you can compare the difference for 1991, [6] . When someone can fall that low, then what are we talking about? Just ban him for continual nationalist baise. The evidence that he has worsened wikipedia with the intention to do so is clearly evident. (LAz17 (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)).

Happy and Merry

Looking through my bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the unending smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steady falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept. — Dylan Thomas, A Child's Christmas in Wales Peace and joy this holiday season. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from myself and from former user Aramgar. I'm guessing you already know this essay, but if not, enjoy! Best wishes, Kafka Liz (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

It was high time I also extended my long due and warmest wishes for a happy and merry Christmas to you. So Merry Christmas FP!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Giorgo! The same wishes go to you and to the other friends above and below. Kafka Liz, Aramgar (hey, won't you come back at last?), Tasso, and all lurkers, friends, foes, socks and pirates who might be watching this page: happy holidays! (I'll be away on vacations from tomorrow.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied

I replied at my talk. Danke schön und Frohe Weihnachten! Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 16:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor

This editor[7] has made some questionable articles concerning real(with fictitious pasts) and fictitious French nobility. The articles in question have been tagged with Articles for deletion notices which Dragoon1988 has started removing. Can you help? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Hi. I noticed that in 2007 you have blocked Trixt1982 as sockpuppet of Uncle Mart. Could you please blocking also User:Trixt2 and User:Trixt3 (they have been created within 2 minutes from one to the other) and also delete all replicated user pages? Thank you in advance--Trixt (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what this is about. Are you the same user that created those other "Trixt" accounts? Or were they created by somebody else and you feel they might be used to impersonate you? Apparently they never actually edited anything, did they? (Note: I'll be away on vacations, so unless we get this sorted out right now you might be better off asking some other admin.) Regards, Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture Query

Can I beg a favour, image:Gibraltar gate opened.jpg, I'm pretty sure this would fail the NFC criteria. However, the editor who uploaded it will see my raising this as wikihounding. Would you mind checking it out please? Justin talk 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it there Justin. Can't say I'm as certain on it failing the criteria, but the reasoning does need to be improved possibly. A pity, a nice picture. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not that sure really and would like to keep the picture to be honest. Justin talk 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism

You might want to check this article,Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism. This section;

• One of the main reasons for such rigor by Ismail and his followers, was to give Iran ideological and political distinction and identity and to distinguish Iran vis-à-vis its two neighboring Sunni Turkish military-political enemies, the Ottoman Empire to the west and, for a time, the Central Asian Uzbeks to the north-east.[8][9][10]
• Several wars between the Iranians and Ottomans, which were a long struggle, provided continual encouragement for the Safavids to strengthen the Shia identity of Iran.[11]
• The Shiitization of Iran was part of the process of constructing a territorialized state apparatus.[12]
  

appears to be taken verbatim from the reference(s) given. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Metapolitefsi

Hi Future. Please look, at your earliest convenience and always realising that this is Christmastime and the holiday season, at the wall of text that metapolitefsi has become. No image is left in the article. If you agree with this that's fine. If not, I would appreciate a few pointers at DRV (if it exists for images). Thanks. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 06:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• User:Piotrus resigned the administrator tools during the case proceedings and may only seek to regain adminship by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• User:Piotrus is banned for three months. At the conclusion of his ban, a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed, shall take effect.
• User:Digwuren is banned for one year. He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and advise the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Should he not advise the committee by the end of the one year ban, he will remain indefinitely banned until a single account is chosen.
• User:Digwuren is placed on a one year topic ban on articles about Eastern Europe, their talk pages, and any related process discussion, widely construed. This shall take effect following the expiration of both above mentioned bans.
• The following users are topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year:

• User:Biruitorul, User:Dc76, User:Martintg, User:Miacek, User:Radeksz, User:Vecrumba, User:Tymek

• User:Jacurek is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months.
• User:Tymek is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.
• The editors sanctioned above (Piotrus, Digwuren, Martintg, Tymek, Jacurek, Radeksz, Dc76, Vecrumba, Biruitorul, Miacek) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.
• All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public. All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Discuss this

Q re copyright status of a file

See File talk:K&ESR closure poster.JPG, is the File:K&ESR closure poster.JPG image now in the public domain by reason of expiry of Crown Copyright. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kiril Pejčinoviḱ

Hello Future. I have problems with the user Todor Božinov, he is reverting me although I have references (Macedonian and American authors). He reverted me twise claiming that my references are not reliable, even though I have never checked or mentioned the reliability of his references. I have used references by Blaže Koneski and Victor Friedman. You can see the history here. I am writing to you since I do not want to start edit war with him. I am fed up of that reverts and low level comments in the edit summary.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

One question more: what is wrong with the Macedonian COAs? Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a cat Macedonian monarchs pretty much explains your actions about being "fed up of that reverts"--Laveol ^T 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aditionaly, I am not allowed to use references, where as Laveol's and Božinov's references are acceptable. Which is that rule, or is that kind of rule accepted only on EN Wiki? As I said my American and Macedonian references are not reliable, where as one Russian and two Bulgarian are acceptable. Push the pov on different way, please, it is obvious.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Image in Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933

The image showing the headline of the March 24, 1933 (London) Sunday Express (JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY) is currently deleted, not only from the subject article (to which you restored it once in 2007), but its file as well from WikiMedia. I believe the image is pertinent, and qualifies under fair use, and blah, blah, blah. I don't need to spell out for you the POV motivating many editors to find reasons for deleting such images.

If you are still of the opinion that the image should be in the article and are otherwise willing to intervene, I'd appreciate your doing so. While I imagine I might be able to initiate such a process myself through some sort of formal application, I am a mere Editor and you, as an Administrator with previous knowledge of this (never-ending) matter, might be able to deal with the matter more expeditiously.

You'll note many (relatively minor) edits of my own in the article, along with many reversions/subsequent alterations from User:Jayjg, whom I somehow suspect you may have heard of before. Please let me know what you decide.--Joe (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to File:DailyExpress March1933 judeafrontpage.jpg. I restored this as I thought it was valid fair use at the time, since it was used in an article of its own, Judea Declares War on Germany. This article has in the meantime been deleted per AFD, and there seems to have never been a fair-use rationale explaining what the image was doing in the other article you mention, Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933. Apparently it was removed from there by a bot merely for this formal reason [8]. As far as image policy is concerned, there would just need to be some kind of rationale about why the image is needed for that article (including why the point needs to be illustrated through an actual reproduction, rather than just a textual quote of the headline), then I could easily restore the file again. But the editorial consensus for that needs to be worked out at the article talk page. I haven't checked if this has ever been debated there. I would personally be skeptical about the fair-use case for this article, but then I'm a dyed-in-the-wool hardcore non-free-image deletionist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

File:AncientGreekDialects (Woodard).svg

I would like to use your excellent and beautiful map commons:File:AncientGreekDialects (Woodard).svg in a Latin article on Greek dialects (la:Lingua Graeca antiqua), but before doing so I have a few questions/requests to make:

1. Could you provide a list of the colours you have used, so I could make a legend?
2. Your map suggests that all of Cyprus spoke Greek, but in fact two city-states did not: there is ample evidence that the inhabitants of Citium spoke Phoenician and those of Amathus a pre-Greek langugage called Eteocypriot. Could you make two enclaves for these cities?
3. Before its capture by Athens during the Peloponnesian war, Aegina was Dorian-speaking, not Ionian. Could you correct this?
4. It seems to be a matter of debate whether ancient Macedonian was Greek or not. Perhaps this could be shown on the map somehow, maybe by stripes?

Thanks in advance and best regards, --Fabullus (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your interest in this map. The idea when I made it was basically just to reproduce the content in the particular source publication mentioned in the description, so I would be a bit wary about making my own editorial changes over it now, especially in such a contentious issue as how to deal with Ancient Macedonian. I remember we were also discussing some other points back then, like how to deal with the non-literary but probably NW-Greek-speaking areas further north-west into Epirus. I'm not sure if the Aegina issue was an oversight on my part or really shown like this in the source. I'm afraid I probably won't have much time dealing with map-making in the immediate future, but if you can edit SVG you are of course welcome to make your own version of it in whatever way suits you best. Cheers, –Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

meh

Judging by your work here, I'm going to take any actions of yours with a heap of salt. Do as you wish - but do try to keep things above board. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

149.254.49.20

I have unblocked 149.254.49.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are no open ports at this time. If trouble develops feel free to block it again. Fred Talk 19:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia in La Francophonie

Well, I guess stranger things have happened, especially when the French are involved :p (Taivo (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

A Question

Can this image here be transferred to WikiCommons or is it a copy vio in your view (ie. not personally made by the uploader)? I ask you this since you have had some interaction with the uploader and may know his/her work. It would be a valuable addition to Commons if it is a legitimate photo. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:File permission problem with File:Tbilisi Old District.jpg

The photograph in question is my own work. The problem here is that since I could not resize the image because of not having an appropriate software at that time, I captured the photo on my screen. I sadly do not have the time to remove the computer mouse that got caught up in the shot but I will work on it sometime in the future. I can not give you any more proof besides stating that I am the author and this is the license I choose for my work.--Satt 2 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly do you want me to prove that the person listed and shown on the photograph is me? Do you want me to take picture of myself with the hard copy of this photograph in my hand, yelling that its me or what? --Satt 2 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_7#File:Cathedral_dome.jpg and the following item. On the basis of Satt 2's claims about these images, which he evidently did not take himself despite his claims, most of the image uploads of Satt 2 are probably copyvios. Independently he has already been quite problematic in his edits to Europe and Talk:Europe on two separate occasions. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting these down, good job. Uploader is now blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion

It would be of great help if you give your own opinion about these small conflicts that happened recently: two users want to remove the lion from the template (see the talk page too, the template here is not allowed to be put, but the Bulgarian one is allowed and they are removing the Macedonian ethnic flag and put lack of sources tag for common knowledge things. Thanks in advance,--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I do not want to believe that they work together, since they write same arguments on the two talk pages.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some help needed

I noted this contributors uploads, were possible for commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Koliri&namespace=6

but in tagging them up I found some of the captions were what I think is Greek?

Would you be willing to look through them, and get anything that can go on Commons up to standard and moved? ( And some IMO unjustified FFD's resolved)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have nominated Jakup Veseli, Rexhep Demi, Veli Gerra and Azis Tahir Ajdonati on the grounds that they do not meet WP:NOTABLE as virtually nothing about theme exists in the literature. Along comes User:Sulmues bombarding the pages in question with sources, all of them in Albanian and impossible to access (let alone evaluate), except for one: Robert Elsie [9]. Yet on looking closer, these four individuals do not appear anywhere in Elsie's page. --Athenean (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your help appreciated

Per [10] as far as information "word-for-word copy-paste job" is not true and "replaced some cited sections of the article with copyvios" also not true. I really don't know what the modified text with names and tonnage of vessells can be deemed as copyvios". While adding a word "Murmansk" as "copyvios" - it's really something new for me - please advice were is the margine between copyvios and original research. Thanks.Jo0doe (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also would be great if you advice me a correct name for such edit - [11] - in source "German tanker JAN WELLEM (11,776grt) departed Murmansk during the evening of 6 April for Narvik". While in article now appeared as the 11,776 tonne Jan Wellem that had sailed to Narvik from the secret German naval base Basis Nord at Zapadnaya Litsa in the Soviet Union on 6 April. I guess WP:SYN? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf and rollback

• I'm sorry, everyone is entittled to a "rollback" mistake. It won't happen again. My apologies to those concerned. Antonio Martin (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

One less agenda account. A small victory for the project, but a victory nonetheless. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Topic ban

I saw your topic ban on my talk page, and I would like to ask you to reconsider. You said that this edit "displays a reckless disregard for NPOV and is therefore disruptive." Why does it display a reckless regard for NPOV? Are you aware that it included the summaries of the older DoE reports which I had originally proposed to exclude from the introduction, after discussion about whether those summaries should also be included? The remainder of the text proposed in that edit is a summary of the most recent peer-reviewed secondary source from an academic publisher on the topic.

I know things can get difficult when the prevailing position on a controversial topic on which both sides have firm positions is suddenly opposed by the peer-reviewed secondary academic sources. That is exactly what is occurring now, and I urge you to take a close look at the sources before making a final decision on what is or is not NPOV. Thank you for taking a closer look. Dual Use (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

editing after topic ban ends

Can you please have a look at the editing of User:HistoricWarrior007 over at 2008 South Ossetia war? You had imposed a 2 month topic ban on him 2 month and 2 days ago. Since it ended, he has restarted editing there, in a questionable way. For example, he re-inserted [12][13] several statements, despite a consensus on the talk page to remove them.

The last two months had seen a stop to the constant edit warring at that article which had been going on for almost a year before (please check the history). I fear that it is on track to decend into revert wars again. --Xeeron (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching the situation. With H.W. it's sometimes difficult to find the exact point where merely opinionated and hyperactive editing turns into tendentious and disruptive editing, so I haven't yet quite made up my mind about how to proceed. However, H.W. should certainly familiarise himself with the idea that if one is topic-banned from an area and then returns, one is expected to change one's behaviour, and not simply continue with the exact same pattern of activity as before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Regarding the Richard Tylman AfD, is there any way to solicit the opinions of uninvolved editors, to prevent the political issues from having any effect? Triplestop x3 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

As you blocked one individual for the topic ban violation, please dont forget to remove his vote on RfD page [14]; one similar case was already implemented [15]. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm aware of that; I'm only a bit reluctant to do this because I voted on the AfD myself previously. My block of Pawel was not for this particular edit, but for a whole number of other edits that breached his topic ban in a much more obvious ways; the AfD edit is arguably more borderline and so I'll prefer to not take a stance on whether the vote should be removed at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Perhaps admin who imposed a topic ban, should judge about that vote on RfD? M.K. (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Cold Fusion

Please see my comment given here. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it up. The community has spoken, this case is closed. And you, with your well-documented history of disruptive wikilawyering, are hardly the best person to convince people of the need to reconsider. Pcarbonn is free to appeal his ban with the Arbcom sub-committee. I plan to close and archive that noticeboard thread fairly soon, so don't waste your breath. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

HELP HELP HELP

Ceha is starting to intimidate me. Please but please keep an eye out so that there will be no problems. Please. (LAz17 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

Uhm, he made one single edit asking you about your topic ban. Hardly a reason for drama. Nevertheless, I have commented there, hopefully to clarify things and help avoid escalation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can see through this. This was his only edit in a month. And it particularily targets me. I am 100% certain that he is a sock puppet. Off of his regular account he just glanced at what I was doing and then logged into his Ceha account. He was banned for sock-puppetry in the past. (LAz17 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

Second question. How on earth is adding demographic data part of the topic ban? In no way is that related to cartography. I just transfered census data onto the page. There is absolutely nothing controversial there. I have regularily been doing this on many municipalities thoughout the republics of the former yugoslavia and nobody ever had an issue with it. (LAz17 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

On reverts and the climate change probation

Thank you for discussing with Jpat34721 on this matter. They have now raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning, and your advice would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin's check

Please, if you can, check the article Jonče Hristovski, because Laveol puts dubious tags. I have given several Macedonian references and one non-Macedonian (as the site says from Jerusalem) and please just check whether the article needs such tags. There is no possibility to find additional third party sources since he is regionally known singer. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a friendly notice ...

Per an off wiki request I have made the following inquiry, [16]. I am just doing a favor for a friend so please don't shoot the messenger. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Ref User_talk:Marknutley#NPOV_warning which is a tinsy bit bitey to a Newbie with good faith, could we have a chat by email? I really don't want to get into a discussion on wiki because there are loads of polemic editors who will butt in and make it difficult to stay calm and thoughtful. I would like to understand the reasoning more and if I have done something wrong myself understand what it was. --BozMo talk 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BONAPARTE = ARBËERSHË

Dear sir. You communicate that change you made to House of Bonaparte is wrong. The family has Arbereshe origin. On 1903, Adolf Thieres write: "When Joseph Bonaparte, the older brother of Napoleon Bonaparte became King of Naples on 1806, Arber / Albanians that went to welcome him, he told say:" And Bonaparte family is from arberesh origin. "Adolf Thieres , x-president of Franz said: Bonapart's older brother admin on 1806, that his family was an Arberesh origin and had very close relationship to Ali Pasha. On Bonaparte's family, Professor Robert d'Angely with origin from Corsica enlight in his book " Enigma of race of origins and languages of Pelasg, Arian, Hellen, Etruscan, Greek and Albanian ". It is a book with seven volumes and 30 years with a work from this professor. In pages 113-117 he wrote that Napoleon Bonaparte was an Albanian origin, same as it was Great Alexander and Scanderbeg.It is interesting that the professor says in his book that the old Surname of Napoleon was "Horse-best" (in Albanian good-hours) and not as Greeks Kalimeros lie.

Additional Details Napoleon apparently also swore in an 'unknown language' when becoming furious. Smth makes us conclude that this language couldn't have been a language near France, because I don't think Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch or English were 'mysterious' idioms that nobody not only didn't understand, but apparently never even heard to. Another thing which might indicate smth, is Napoleon's treatment of one of the generals who conquored Egypt (who's name I cannot recall). He was besieging a fortress in Egypt protected by Albanians for the most part. The general gave the Albanians his promise that if they surrendered the already lost fortress without further resistance, they would be pardoned and left to go. But when they abandoned the fortress, they were disarmed and executed (2,000 men according to the source ). 2 years ago

Napoleon upon hearing what happened, fired the general and confiscated his medals, stating that 'French soldiers do not fight that cowardly' - did Napoleon do this because he felt kinship with the betrayed warriors who defended the fortress, or because he was a fair soldier or because of his blood from ......Arberesh?(it could be the latter, but didn't Napoleon's men slaughter people wherever they went, more or less?)?? --Irvi Hyka 13:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Users: Irvi Hyka

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Castle of Irchonwelz

Was it all copy and pasted verbatim? I think not. Also i was given permission to use stuff from the owners website to improve the article. Would you care to self revert or shall i just rewrite everything? --mark nutley (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please rewrite. What I saw was pasted together from text blocks from at least two sources, with several full-sentence chunks copied verbatim. That's never good. Not only does it create copyright/plagiarism issues, it also never produces a good, coherent text. (About incoherence: e.g., what role does the "sale of the domain of Ath" play in the argument? What is the medieval French term translated here as "stronghold", given that the English word "stronghold" doesn't actually have the specific meaning described here, in normal usage? "It is often forgotten..." is unencyclopedic. The whole passage about the "controversy" is unsourced. "sits on the site and houses..." is ungrammatical.)

About the image, please feel free to ask me if you need advice on how to handle the copyright issue. Basically, you need an explicit statement from the copyright owners stating what legal conditions they wish to release it under (like e.g. cc-by-sa). A mere "you may use this" is too vague. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have mailed them again asking if it is ok to apply "fair use" to the images copyright, will that be suitable permissions? --mark nutley (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid not, sorry. "Fair use" is when we use an image without the owner's release, because we have a legitimate need to use it for purposes such as analysing and discussing the image itself as an object of encyclopedic coverage. That's not the case here, and it would also never pass WP:NFCC, because it would be obviously replaceable with a free image somebody else might take of that building. An acceptable license would be something like cc-by-sa. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Followed that link and i think this one is already covered by the permission i got from the owner. Cite the author's name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists. I did all that did`nt i? --mark nutley (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but the point is, have the owners given explicit permission for everybody else to do the same elsewhere under such conditions, for any other purpose? Or did they just talk about us using it here on Wikipedia? If the latter, I'm afraid that wouldn't be enough.

Sorry we have to be nitpicky about such things, but thanks for making the effort – it would obviously be nice to have the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A, now i see what you mean, it would be easier to rewrite it then :) I have also asked them to d othe form for the pics from their website, cheers mate. --mark nutley (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Talk:Western world. (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Let's not play silly games about source tags; we all know this is used as an ethnic flag. I can proove you that this flag is the flag of the "Macedonian State" when the other flag is use are flag of "Macedonian People" (and this last is a great isue with the Albanians that refusing a ethnic coat of arms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indymediacentral (talk • contribs)

Hello, Indymediacentral, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with Macedonian; did you know there is a Macedonian Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I work for hours in forums and Encyclopedias to see my work to be bandalist.

Why it is removed the German flag? You desagree with this? The German people are not represented with a flag?

Read the discussion page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

argumentum Jimbonis

Excellent! And, by the way, do I read your user page correctly ... you are semi-literate in Latin? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Files listed for deletion

Hello. I seem to have misinterpreted the 'Replaceable' criterion. I agree with all deletions except for this (possibly pd-art), this (also pd-art) and this (for which I obtained a permission from its author at www.forum.ge). Thanks for letting me know about all of these.Kober^Talk 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your understanding. About the cases you mention: this and this are problematic because they are not 2D objects and hence it is assumed that taking photographs of them involves enough creativity to create new copyright. The law case that our concept of PD-art is based on, Bridgman vs. Corel, only referred to 2D objects. As for this, I'd ask you to add some documentation about what exactly the author told you about the usage conditions. Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

(1) No, I have no connection to the IP editor. (2) The current version does not reflect consensus. (3) Waiting for someone to remove the sourced information before immediately protecting the article does not at all reflect the neutral intervention I expect from an administrator. I believe you have handled this poorly. I have no doubt that you don't care, and I don't require a response, but I feel the need to register my disagreement with what I perceive to be a poor use of the administative tools. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Full Protection of WrestleMania 23

Can you please unblock it there's an administrator that's going to keep bugging us about no footnote and now he's going to think he got his way.--C23 C23's talk 18:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Re. to both the above: this was an honest-to-god "wrong version" protection of what happened to be the current version when I came to the page. I had been considering if it would need protection while it happened to be in your preferred version; by the time I had made up my mind that protection would be needed, the other guy had reverted. I had not been "waiting" for that to happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you please un-protect WrestleMania 23?--C23 C23's talk 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I could only do that if I had an assurance from all editors currently involved in the dispute that they'd stop reverting and leave the status quo until things have been sorted out on the talk page. You see, that's the whole point about protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yah, I know it's just that User:JzG someone who argues just for the point of arguing and it's not me who is the root of this problem it's him so I promise to stop reverting but he won't even when we get a consensus.--C23 C23's talk 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A minor disagreement

Would you take a look at the Cantonist article? A hassidic editor (User:Debresser, now the subj. of an Arbcom ase for POV-pushing) keeps putting a dubious tab on a (most authoritative) secular source, while removing a similar tag from an academically discredited hassidic one. This is quite minor as a content dispute, but increasingly looks like a provocation.Galassi (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Longitudo

Can we just grant IPBE? I don't see where he's been a problem. He's an infrequent user, but I don't see where he's been disruptive. I will also buzz Hersfold, who was the original blocking admin on the blocked range, to see what's what. --Jayron32 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Could you do the necessary steps? He seems to be innocent collateral damage. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with Sheynhertz-Unbayg's contribution history, although Wikipedia:SU appears to detail some of his typical "tells". Checkuser evidence shows that it is quite  Possible that Longitudo is S-U, but I'm not able to confirm any connection. I've got no opinion on the unblock, but I would recommend if a IPBE is given, that one of both of you keep a close eye on the account just in case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your feedback and the info. I'm not seeing any suspicious similarities between the socking pattern and this account, so I'm assuming it's a good-faith user. I've set the IPBE for him now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Guidance needed

Hi Fut. Perf, please have a look at my proposed finding of fact at User:Shlomke/drafts and tell me if this is what you mean the arbs are looking for, as well as if anything needs explaining, corrections etc.. If this is not what they want, please clarify what it is. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

rollback

Please restore, review anon edits to articles that have had to be manually reverted (Malta) and others. How long are you planning on excluding me from the feature? Cheerzzz Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will restore it once I have assurance that you understand the problem and will not abuse the feature again. Unfortunately, I see no signs of this. To the contrary, you seem now to be misusing the "Undo" feature in the same way. This edit is again an unexplained revert of a good-faith edit. Is it really so difficult to understand that if you revert another user, and it's not blatant vandalism, you owe them the courtesy of an explanation? Incidentally, your restoration of the cat in this case was technically incorrect: the cat doesn't belong, because the page already has a more specific subcat Category:Collective recipients of the George Cross. This too was wrong at least in parts (it was indeed the Second Punic War, not the First, that happened in 218BC; the First was 264 – 241 BC). So, no, you need to become a lot more careful with reverts before I'll give you Twinkle back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that factual accuracy isn't high on your agenda! Also, I don't believe you're competent to make this decision (re. restoration of twinkle) and will require further opinions. Where should I request these? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AN. As far as I'm concerned, any admin is free to overrule me here, provided they have taken proper notice of this as well as this thread here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Srsly, some people. γνῶθι σεαυτόν!! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:LAz17

I see that you've come across this user before. There is currently a thread at WP:ANI which you may wish to comment on. Seems to me that this user is a perennial problem in Eastern Europe related articles. Possibly worth considering a topic ban or some other sanction. Does WP:ARBMAC apply here, or is there a similar case which could be applied? Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Arbmac is applicable (this is basically all about Serb-Croat antagonism over Bosnia), and I agree we may need to look into the options of applying wider sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad movement evidence

Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as and if appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I take it Fritzpoll's request wasn't directed at anybody in particular and you have just been forwarding it to everybody who had submitted evidence, so I guess I don't need to feel particularly addressed, right? I actually think my evidence is pretty brief and focussed as it is now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Jsqqq777

is still at adding USSR everywhere in math bio articles. I have very little patience and cannot possibly revert all his/her edits. Help! Mhym (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review this

GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "still no valid opposition" seems to me to be plain old fashioned obduracy - several people have stated perfectly valid opposition, but he doesn't like that so he chooses to ignore it. I think stonewalling in discussions like this is not productive, I don't think he's going to shut up until he gets the answer he wants, and I think that sooner or later someone is going to have to work out what to do about that. Perhaps you are that person? Guy (Help!) 12:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: won't have much time for dealing with this until later this evening. Will have a look then. Cheers, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. The article is still protected, I think (did not check expiry on that), so there's no urgency. Better to be calm and right than start yet another dramafest. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have cited policy repeatedly. Meltzer meets the criteria for a reliable self-published sourced. As a result, the statment meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:V. Nobody has given a valid argument that overrides WP:V. We have personal preference (nowhere in any policy does it say a second source is required) and a complete misunderstanding of WP:OR (no Wikipedia editor is trying to put any sort of spin on it, other than the exclusionists, who claim that any number ending in a 7 is too precise and therefore not worthy of inclusion). I have provided quotations from numerous policies and guidelines, only to be met with links to policies that are either irrelevant or do not support the exclusionist position. If people are unable to come up with a valid argument, that is certainly no reason to seek a topic ban for the other side. This whole debate is over 7 words, which can be reliably cited: "Dave Meltzer stated (or estimated) an attendance figure of xx,xxx". It is completely verifiable, and the majority of the opposition comes from people turning a blind eye to the very first line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true"...not that truth would have anything to do with it, since I can't imagine anyone not believing that Meltzer made that statement. As I have demonstrated repeatedly, Meltzer is a reliable source because he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In fact, he has been cited by numerous reliable publications for his work in determining WrestleMania attendance figures (in the disputed attendance of WrestleMania III. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just quickly reviewed the discussion as it has developed so far at the article RfC, even though my brain was in risk of ending up like the one at the top of User talk:Abd. I can see that the consensus is currently leaning clearly towards Guy's view, and I note that Enric Naval (talk · contribs), a highly respected and experienced outside observer, has made a well-argued policy-based statement in support, together with most of the previously involved editors now agreeing with these two. Since RfCs are typically allowed to run for a somewhat longer period, I'll leave this one for a couple more days, and then see if there is need for a formal closure and determination of binding consensus, which I could do as an uninvolved admin. For the time being, given the indications of consensus leaning this way, I would strongly advise GaryColemanFan leave the status quo in the article as is when the protection will expire in a short while, until a formal determination is made (or, better still, a consensus is mutually acknowledged by the parties). I also recommend toning the volume of dispute down until then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The point is more that GCF is loudly asserting that there is "still no valid opposition" and "no policy-based opposition", which is very obviously not the case and reflects a very poor attitude towards several long-standing Wikipedians in good standing. It smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is disruptive behaviour. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The matter here has escalated. The user has now taken the matter up with the content noticeboard and the WP:NOR noticeboard. It has been pointed out to me that this is a violation of WP:GAME and I have edited both pages accordingly, but it looks like the RfC is clearly not working to resolve this and I don't think anything will at this point short of tougher action against this use who is ignoring community consensus using policy and nothing but to argue his point. He is also reversing an admin edit at WP:PW/SG claiming consensus exists for it's inclusion when there is no such thing. !! Justa Punk !! 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The edit warring on the project page is certainly troublesome - but then again, he wasn't the only one to war on it; I have protected that page for a few days. As for the noticeboards, I don't think that should be held against him: I would have preferred it if his postings there had been shorter and more neutral, more like a mere notification and invitation to the RfC, but apart from that, trying to get more independent input from a neutral place like the OR noticeboard is basically just what those noticeboards are for. I'll wait one or two days to see if those notifications will draw more input to the RfC, and then close it. Let's all try to keep the heat down. What worries me most about this is that such a minor side issue is getting so much hyperbolic attention; other than that I see it as a legitimate content dispute where both sides have some reasonable points. Once a consensus stabilises, we'll just shut the lid on it and ask people to move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's old-fashioned forum shopping, nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could take it exactly as it is intended: asking people who are familiar with WP:V for clarification on WP:V, and asking people familiar with WP:OR for clarification on WP:OR. In addition, I would note that I did not reverse an "admin edit" on the style guide, but rather restored a version that has been agreeable to everyone for the past couple of years and was recently changed without seeking consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! And of course the only people who understand policy are the ones who agree with you, aren't they? Forget whatever Wikipedia experience they might have, if they understood it properly they would surely agree with you. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when did RfCs become a majority vote? If one editor can properly cite policy, and ten can miquote policy, Wikipedia is obligated to go with the one. Your closure is clearly in error, not to mention the fact that, as someone who previously issued a topic ban to one of the parties involved (which, I notice, was not lifted as a courtesy during the RfC to ensure fair representation), and since you are the first person that the exclusionists run to while stalking my edits, you can hardly be seen as sufficiently neutral to close an RfC. At any rate, may I be so bold as to simply ask which policy arguments you felt best supported the exclusionist position and why they outweighed my policy arguments? Certainly, I'm at least entitled to that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If one editor proposes an interpretation of policy, and ten others fail to be convinced by that, it is rather difficult to call a consensus in any other way. As for the strengths of argument, I find the Enric Naval's statement particularly noteworthy. His reference to WP:REDFLAG points to the fact that WP:V isn't a suicide pact. There is no absolute automatism that just because a claim has been proposed somewhere, we have no other choice but to include it. There is a remaining level of editorial discretion in determining how much weight to give to what, and it cannot be avoided that editors' personal judgments about the plausibility of a claim play into this decision. There is a fine line between this editorial judgment and WP:OR, but in the present case I could see that a number of experienced editors, who are above any suspicion of having their own biased agendas in this matter, made a responsible and good-faith decision within the bounds of this editorial discretion.

As for myself, I am as neutral and uninvolved as I could possibly be. I performed one administrative action when I responded to an open call for help at a noticeboard and banned the IP. The reason people have been coming to me since is just this: I happened to be the admin who had taken charge of the situation. Now I am performing another administrative action, from the same position. You will have noticed that in the meantime I have defended your opportunities of discussing and seeking input, more than some would have wanted to allow.

Now, my polite warning to you still stands. By continuing to raise an amount of controversy that is quite out of proportion with the utter lack of objective importance of the content in question, you are inviting questions as to the motives you have in pushing this point so hard. Have you a COI here? Have you got some personal real-life stake in showing those attendance figures to be lower than claimed? Are you associated with that Mr. Meltzer in some way? Frankly, I find it difficult to conceive of any motivation you might have for a continued refusal to just let the issue go and move on, other than perhaps simply having got stuck with your spiderman costume up on that glass dome and finding it difficult to climb down.

As I said, continued campaigning about this may be seen as disruptive editing. I banned the IP mainly because of their irrational tenacity, and I might be forced to do the same with you if you continue to behave in the same way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you in a choir?

I currently sing with Reading Bach Choir and Aldworth Philharmonic choir, I am also singing with the Bartholomew Consort in February and am going to audition for Tamesis Chamber Choir. Also I sing with various ad-hoc groups arranged by my singing teacher. Which reminds me: I must get home for my singing lesson... Guy (Help!) 17:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP

I noticed you made a prod template for unsourced BLP's. There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Add_new_criteria_to_CSD which addressed a related question. Based on that discussion I would say that this new template needs some discussion first. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there has been, there has been :-) See Wikipedia:Unreferenced biographies of living people and especially Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Plus a couple days' worth of intense debate at ANI and Arbcom. My template is essentially based on Jehochman's proposal on the RfC page, which currently has an emerging consensus of >100 support votes and will probably be made official some time soon. It sort of supercedes the earlier CSD discussion, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets work together

Thank you for your efforts.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		The Barnstar of Diplomacy is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. It is always hard to be the first person to make the first gesture of kindness and reconciliation. That is why I offer Future Perfect at Sunrise this barnstar, for teaching me how to not only be a better wikipedian, but a better person. Thank you, and god bless you. Ikip 10:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Excubatificationising

Seeing as you are 1)A Admin™ and 2) online, please could you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject unreferenced BLP sorting/Actors and filmmakers/Diana Millay, which needs to move back over a redirect. Cheers   pablo_hablo. 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I think this one you could actually have moved yourselves, technically, as the redirect didn't have history. Thanks for helping fix these. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta - I probably did know that about a redirect with no history. Will try to remember in future.   pablo_hablo. 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Talk:Ben Oxenbould
• Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Oxenbould

• Talk:Andrew Trimble
• Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Andrew Trimble

• Talk:Bennett King
• Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Bennett King

• Talk:Ben Pepper
• Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Ben Pepper

recycling a section heading ;) the above talk pages need history merges, too; under the redirects. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

History of the Macedonians (ethnic group)

After some recent (unfortunately again) coordinated attacks on various historical articles from ethnic Macedonians I happened upon this article. It is supposed to be about a people and instead concentrates on the history of the region as far as the ancient times. It gives a historical background of the region, talks about the Bulgarian and Slavic migrations without (openly) making any link or reference with the ethnic group. As you understand this is a covert way to connect the people with the said "nations", surpassing the difficulties of having to make bold statements and present bibliogrphy. I would not like to personally occupy myself with this issue to not stir up things but you have worked on it and other Slavic oriented articles and I hope you are generally accepted as a non anti Macedonian editor. Can you shape this article up and remove irrelevant material? Should those history sections remain, they should be made relevant. GK1973 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I'll find much time to work on this in the near future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Persia2099

You may wish to read this, for more stuff to delete.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

SUN WILL BURN YOU ALIVE NOW!

Thank you very much for your user page. It brought a smile, and I needed one (yay Monday). :) Also thank you for your work at Biocentrism. Old Prussian? Interesting collection of languages. :) - Sinneed 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly remember to ask for another sabaia for you, next time I happen to be in an Illyrian pub. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reenem RfA

Your closure just edit-conflicted mine, but thanks anyway for doing that :) I was rather surprised to see the RfA; I've had their talkpage watchlisted since this time last year and have contemplated an indefblock more than once. EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

78.30.158.147 (talk · contribs)

Do you think this may be a sock? Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Very likely, but I can't right now remember whose. There have been various rather stubborn sockpuppeters in that area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Biocentrism

Hi. Aren't you going to move Talk:Biocentrism to Talk:Biocentrism (cosmology)? — goethean ॐ 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I was actually thinking about that; I've commented on it on the talk page now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture Gallery

• at Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–1941)

I guess if someone found the photo [[17]] of W. Averell Harriman as a person belonging to Nazi-Soviet background - it would be not so good.

Even more if some of 1956 DDR workers [18] found themselves a responcible for 1940 inspection. Same approach also can be found in all "Nazi-Soviet" topic edited by creator of the article. Some data indeed really fun - like Basis Nord - German naval base which never exist [19] nor seen any german Navy ships (as source used by editor clearly indicate) :) Thanks. Does it would be good to use Pact of Steel style in related artilce? Your opinion appreciated. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

...with a serious matter. User:Lvivske ([[20]]) deletes without discussion all data pertaining to Jewish history in the towns in Western Ukraine. He has previously demonstrated a tendency toward historical revisionism re jews, so it is not easy to assume goodfaith. Your opinion? -Galassi (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gnat image

I can't actually find very many copes of the image online. Tineye says it's too simple to search for and the two people I've seen use it as an avatar are not currently using it. Nevertheless, there are some hits on a Google search for "crawling bug avatar", such as this one. AS for the copyright status: honestly I hadn't even thought about whether something like that might be copyrighted; if it's possible, then I would have no objection to deletion. Its likely that Electric mocha chinchilla isnt the original author, and unprovable even if he is. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use photos

Thanks for your constructive answer to my question on the Files for Deletion page ie:Salinger:

Response: images where no commercial interests are at stake would be, for instance photographs that the subject himself had used for promotional purposes during their life (e.g. photos on the subject's own webpage etc.) Also, images where such interests were explicitly waived, e.g. through a "permission for non-commercial use" or "permission for use on wikipedia".

I am particularly interested in Damien's response to the question, however, because he has also nominated files that I uploaded for deletion. I have been following the Salinger thread because I was actually shocked to see it nominated for deletion, etc. Anyway, the images that concern me are of David Carradine and after reading your response I took a look at his official website and found that most of the images there are being offered for sale as autographed prints, so it would appear that they have commercial value to someone. It seems to me that screen shots from his movies and television, and photos that have been circulated in newspapers and magazines would have less commercial value than the ones on the website. It also seems to me that if interests had been waived, there would not be a need for a fair use rationale to begin with. This whole fair use concept is really hard to grasp and looking at its history, it has been for a really long time. If you are quite knowledgeable about the topic I am eager to learn more about it. Also, how do you get your talk page semi-protected? I would love to do that due to a recent attack.Thanks--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Woodward pic biloxi oyster warf.jpg

Future, what the heck am I to do with this one? I'm confused with the conversation that you and Angus were having. I can't work out now whether you think it should be kept, or whether it should be deleted. Can you clarify your thoughts at the AFD? I'd like to get this one closed to clear the backlog. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it was a bit confusing. My summary is this: I demonstrated that based on the creation and publication history it could in priciple still be in copyright, if the formalities of registering and renewal were done, while Angus made a plausible case that it seems they in fact weren't, so an assumption of PD seems reasonable. It might also be added that even if it turns out to be copyrighted, we could make a good fair-use case for at least one or two of those paintings, if not for all of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock

2007apm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reminds me very much of User:EmpMac [21]. An ultranationalist Albanian account with a fascination for sexual acts. Does it pass WP:DUCK or should I file an SPI? Regards, Athenean (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still missing one or two other signature features of Emperordarius, so I'm not yet entirely sure. Maybe an SPI/CU case would be suitable – there's still an old apparent Emperordarius IP around that has been active recently, so maybe CU could bring something up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise,

Can you tell me which other country article lede includes the detailed geographic information that you insist stays in the Bulgaria lede? Is this the norm? Second, did you have a look at the England lede, or for example the Korea lede which include information about their ancient heritage? If you consider this to be PEACOCK, what do you think about the Greece article lede, wherein it states, "Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy,[6] Western philosophy,[7] the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama,[8] including both tragedy and comedy"?

As per Wikipedia rules, if it is not OK for one country to include information about its ancient heritage in its lede, than it certainly would mean that the same rules would have to be applied to the aforementioned countries (and many others), including Greece. If you feel that you can not look upon this issue from a more neutral perspective, than I will apply your standards and make necessary changes in the Greek article. If need be I will start a new discussion in WP to highlight what I believe is solid empirical evidence that there are double standards applied to different country articles. I simply can not stand by when I see the utilization of two sets of rules (unreflective of the singular guidelines of Wikipedia), especially (as in the case(s) that I am most familiar with) between Bulgarian and Greek editors.--Monshuai (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Hi again Futperf. I've been watching the File:JD Salinger.jpg debate for some time and am confused by your latest edit regarding the copyright renewal. From what I can see the first publication was in his iconic book in 1951 (inside the back cover). Copyright on this book was renewed (in 1978 I think—in fact this book is used as an example of copyright renewal in a few places) so from this I presume that the image is also still (c). Do I have the wrong end of the stick here ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dang. I had gone by what Ruhrfisch had been saying some paragraphs down from mine, about having searched that database. Didn't know about that book publication. Could you perhaps add this piece of information to Ruhrfisch's statement? If you already mentioned it elsewhere in that debate, I may easily have overlooked it; it's such a huge mess now I couldn't take in all the statements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor?

Hi!

I think you are more than aware that there has been a wikiHunt for images recently, and I feel that I have been victimized. I would like to ask you a favor. I have been working on the Linda McMahon page, and I want to bring back a few images to enhance readability and illustrate main points.

File:Todayshow.jpg was a screenshot of a television show, and if you could, would you help me add some rationale so that the administrators don't delete it again?

Thank you so much! --Screwball23 talk 03:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Future Perfect: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Loosmark

Hi. On 17 November you placed Loosmark under the following restriction:

1. 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion.

Today in the discussion page for Frédéric Chopin Loosmark edited the title of a section I had created (diff here [22]). I reverted the title on the basis that the wording was correct and that Loosmark has no right to edit my posts, I also left a message stating that Loosmark should not edit my posts. Loosmark promptly (as in within seven minutes) reverted my change (diff here [23]).

In my opinion (not that my opinion is worth anything), Loosmark has broken both elements of the third restriction you placed him under: he has not provided any explanation for his revert on the talk page and he did not wait three hours to allow time for discussion. Do you think that he has broken the restrictions he was placed under?Varsovian (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have explained yesterday why I have changed the title, it is very insulting to the great composer as noted by another user on that talk. Also I have not reverted you more than 1 time.  Dr. Loosmark  10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the restriction is that you are required to first provide an explanation on the talk page for the revert and then wait three hours to allow time for discussion. Only then may you revert. Please provide me with diffs showing where and at what time you posted on the talk page providing an explanation for the revert. I note you have not joined in the discussion I started on the talk page attempting to find a consensus name for the section.Varsovian (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes if I edit the main page, however this was a talk page title. Also this might be technicality but I think I have not even reverted you, I have only changed the insulting title. Had I really reverted you than the whole post you wrote would have been "undone" which is not the case.  Dr. Loosmark  10:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lads, is there remotely any point whatsoever in your having this discussion? Nothing of any importance has happened; just shake virtual hands and forget the whole thing.--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

fine. virtual handshake Varsovian.  Dr. Loosmark  10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sebastokrator

Hello! You are right, he doesn't use this exact word. Consequently I changed it back to your term. Thanks for the correction! :) Constantine ✍ 17:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I don't mind any corrections, as long as the phrasing makes clear that the compound was created by essentially fusing two pre-existing "imperial" titles. FYI, the ODB uses the term "combination". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior and South Ossetia

Just thought you might want to know- you're being accused by HistoricWarrior of bringing "terror to the article" along with what appears to be a thinly veiled accusation of meatpuppetry, in the [24] I had left the article to others close to a month ago, yet apparently I warrant his ire. FluffyPug (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks and User:Chokokokoa

Since you're the governing admin for Liancourt Rocks, I'm reporting the blatant violation[25] by Chokokokoa (talk · contribs) in regards to the naming order and edit summary. --Caspian blue 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you help?

This individual[26] seems to have a problem understanding that he/she changed referenced information[27]. Then this same individual then posts on my talk page stating that he/she did not change any referenced information after I illustrated quite clearly he/she had[28]. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Page moves

Consensus There is consensus at WP:DASH and several discussions of bilateral pages on several occasions. Note that literally hundreds of pages are in the form "X–Y relations" and WP:DASH is a long-standing guideline. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consistency I don't really care if the pages are at "Greco-X relations" or "Greece–X relations"; all I'm trying to do is bring some consistency to the haphazard way that they are named, including the use of ndashes where appropriate. There should not be a page named "Finland-Greece relations" period and that is irrespective of the discussion on the matter that you showed me. (I had not seen it before, but several prior to it.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I find it highly suspect that other users really had an investment in the naming (again, if they did, they probably would have cared about proper typography in the articles' titles), but you may not that I left Greek–Icelandic relations. My purpose was to get rid of hyphens where dashes were appropriate, and you're really interested, you can look at my contributions to see thousands of such moves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain Considering what you wrote to me, can you explain why you moved articles that include a dash to ones that include a hyphen without consensus and against WP:DASH, with the explanation that it is "proper English"? E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greece_%E2%80%93_South_Korea_relations&action=history —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proper English Constructions like "German-Polish" are acceptable English to the extent that they are a compound word. Take, for instance, "Africa–America relations" versus "African-American relations". The former is a compound of two nouns, clearly forming a disjunction. The latter is a construction of one word that refers to the group "African-Americans." By creating pages like "Polish-German relations" you are apparently discussing relations of Polish-Germans. It is not proper English to use a hyphen in this manner because you are intending to create a disjunction between two separate groups rather than a compound adjective. This is exactly why adjectival forms should not be used in the first place and are ambiguous (in addition to the inherent ambiguity of "Congolese-X" or "Dominican-X" anything.) You are correct that WP:DASH does not address the compound of two adjectival forms that have some lexical independence because they are not to use a dash in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility I'm not going to discuss anything with you if you're going to be so aggressive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your note You'll note that German–Polish relations (and whatever other names it has had) was not a part of the moves that I did prior to your request that I stop. Here's what happened:

1. I noticed some pages had incorrect uses of the hyphen, when several hundred had proper ndashes (including dozens of categories.)
2. I assumed that this was standardized on the basis of the vast majority having one style of name.
3. I moved the ones that I could.
4. You requested that I stop.
5. I posted the ones that I could not move to WP:RM.
6. You moved back several of the moves I had made.
7. You moved Germany–Poland relations to German-Polish relations: back to proper English; usage as in article text (hyphen as per Good Olfactory). Which is curious, as I did not move this page. In point of fact, looking at its history, it appears the Good Olfactory moved it several weeks ago because "moved German–Polish relations to Germany–Poland relations over redirect: if endash: country names; if hyphenated, then adjectives; matching to category name". If you were moving "per Good Olfactory", you would have not moved it at all, as he was the one who moved it there himself. If you were simply undoing my moves, you also would not have moved it, as I wasn't the one who moved it there. As you wrote on my talk page in the first place: "Will you at last stop those disruptive mass page moves? You know perfectly well you have no consensus for them. Stop. them. now." And then you continued to do the exact opposite yourself (unless somehow you got some consensus to move this page and I am unaware) and threaten me immediately afterward? I have to admit, I'm confused by your apparently self-contradictory actions here and would like an explanation on my talk at your earliest convenience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore In case I did not make myself clear before, I felt like the tone of this message was uncivil and I would like to request that you not be as provocative if you choose to post to my talk in the future. If I have done something to you to warrant such vituperation, I would like to know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay then So your claim is that you thought I had recently moved the German/Poland article and you were simply attempting to undo it as a part of that same set of moves? If so, it's a simple misunderstanding (I'm not sure how you made it, but that's ultimately immaterial.) I hope you can see my frustration as it appears like you were flatly contradicting what you instructed me to do. I was willing to let it slide and not call you on it, until you deliberately brought it to my attention on my talk. Regardless... I am not going to get into an argument about what is "proper English" as it seems like you broadly have a perspective of descriptive grammar and I have one of prescriptive grammar. If that is true, it's only going to result in arguing past one another and I really have no interest in that. My assumption is that there is little more to discuss, but if you feel the need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescriptivism My purpose is not to inflate the weakness of an idea, but merely point to the fact that your appeals are of the sort, "X is how things are done generally, therefore, that is how they should be done here" whereas mine are of the sort, "We should choose an arbitrary standard and apply it consistently." Obviously, the two of those are going to be at loggerheads. I am not interested in getting into some argument about whether or not I am proscribing bad grammar as my concern is essentially one of style rather than grammar ultimately, and this kind of discussion will easily degenerate into finger-pointing about trivialities (assuming that it hasn't already.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the magic trick

Thanks for changing me to a confirmed user. Best wishes. I get a snow day from work today, yeah! Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Nick Griffin

I'll be honest, I didn't really expect a fight over this one- the other user seems to have been rather offended about something. Thanks for the intervention. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to refuse, and I'll respect that (I could restore myself but don't think it is right) but can I ask you to undelete this image? The rationale you gave for the deletion was per a consensus. However, you will note that there was no consensus to remove this image. If I was to include myself, I count three users opposed to outright deletion. I was trying to facilitate collaborative editting between two opposing, but very good editors; you're snap deletion has rendered this opportunity impossible. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry but I don't really see what good that would be for. You're welcome to restore it if you feel strongly about it, but then it would only go to FFD and would be gone again in a week. From my – pretty extensive – experience with FFD and current NFCC practice, this image has not a snowball's chance in hell to survive there. Instead of FFD, I could also still just speedy it within process after a week. How would this week help you? How would having the image around for that period aid you in your effort of finding alternatives?

As for consensus: the way I read the discussion, J Milburn, Off2riorob, Skomorokh, and David Fuchs unambiguously argued against the image. Slatersteven first said, "I do not see that this adds anything to the article". That is enough to count him among those supporting deletion. Nothing he could then say afterwards could possibly amount to a valid argument for retention – it would be blatantly self-contradictory. You can't possibly argue for retention of a non-free image if you accept it "doesn't add anything". Parrot of Doom actually said something similar ("it isn't really that important, and it wouldn't be the end of the world if it were removed"). And a similar problem applies to your own position: if you have already accepted that free replacements are possible (implicit in your suggestion that we should be searching for one), that in itself means you have accepted the NFCC are not met; keeping is then not an option.

That's a consensus in my book. And as I said, I see no chance that a different consensus would have emerged in a more formal context such as FFD.

Add to this that the FUR was blatantly insufficient: it said the image was used "to show that Nick Griffin was a student at Cambridge". But we don't use non-free images to "show" facts. We verify facts by sourcing them to reliable textual sources; we never use images to prove them. The fact as such can presumably be sourced; nothing in the image is required to understand it.

In my view, this was a valid speedy under CSD F7, in connection with NFCC#2#8. The seven-days waiting period for such cases is meant to ensure that uploaders and interested editors have a chance of becoming aware of the issue and responding; in this case, they already had, so the waiting had already served its purpose. The waiting period is not meant to give editors the gratification of seeing the image around seven more days. In this case, the ongoing edit war justified shortening the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually said (in full) “I do not see that this adds anything to the article, but nor do I see (unlike some very slight reservations below) that this detracts from it either.” So I neither supported nor opposed deletion. I then supported Jza84 to leave this two weeks to aloe time to call off. I then opposed the arbitrary and premature deletion of the photo on the grounds that no decision had been reached as to its breaching of free image criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems you didn't understand my point: your suggestion was simply not viable. It's self-contradictory. You cannot validly argue for keeping a non-free image, even for only two weeks, or even be neutral about it, if you accept it "doesn't add anything". (Whether it "detracts from it" is quite irrelevant here.) Policy just doesn't allow for such options; NFCC#2 is absolutely rigid and obligatory in this respect. If you accept it "doesn't add anything", then you are accepting it fails NFCC#2; then anything else but supporting deletion is simply not a policy-conformant argument I could possibly take seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that a non-free image absolutely should only be used if it adds to the article; as such, your statements are clearly in support of deletion. As for the "cooling off" period; that is not tied to any policy, nor is it particularly useful in such clear-cut cases as this. There is also the point that if we were to have a cooling period, the non-free image should not be there, just to be on the safe side. Also note the section about the burden of proof in our criteria. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

NFCC#2? I am sorry (and I might be reading thbe wrong thing) but how how does that apply here? NFCC#8 seems to be the one, and I agree that it might not meet that. But others disagreed with that. Also I was not aware (but I might be missing something) thats its non-free status had been established.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I meant NFCC#8 of course; I keep mixing those numbers up. As for the image being in fact non-free, I take it that was never in question, was it? It was always tagged as non-free from the time of its upload, and I don't see anybody making a suggestion to the contrary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you have reason to believe this image is free, by all means, share it with us. Until we have evidence that it is free, it must be treated as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Parrot of Doom actually said something similar ("it isn't really that important, and it wouldn't be the end of the world if it were removed")" - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. I meant that the argument wasn't that important, and that the world wouldn't collapse into a black hole if it were lost. Parrot of Doom 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Racist editor update

I updated the AN/I thread on the racist editor. Please give it another read, as I'm not entirely convinced this is resolved.--Crossmr (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alva Noe

After having deleted Alva Noe, I was told that I shouldn't have deleted it, and that German Wikipedia's article is evidence to this. Since you are an admin here who knows German, I would like your opinion on the matter. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The German article doesn't offer very much. Slightly peacocky ("... has done groundbreaking research ...") without sourcing to any independent sources assessing his impact. Seems to be a not-very-senior researcher so far. Might well be notable, but it's not really documented clearly in either of the two articles. I'm not sure if it falls under A7-speedy though. Personally, I'm skeptical of a too inclusionary treatment of WP:PROF criteria, and I personally wouldn't fight for restoration, but the way I've seen WP:PROF applied to relatively minor figures at various AfDs lately, I can well imagine that the description of his academic career would bring him into the range that other editors would consider notable enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re AN

Regarding this comment of yours, I request you strike the part where I allegedly "hijacked" the thread to continue a "feud" with Radeksz. My comment was made before Radeksz even posted and is well on topic. The edit I made after Radek's post was nothing but refactoring the word "motion" and leave a small note saying I just did so. I made no further response at all, despite Radek's remarks, because that indeed would have derailed the thread. Therefore I am pretty surprised by your strong words directed at me and feel they are both unfounded and unnecessary, hence my request. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding at once. I stand by my comment. Given the extensive history between you guys, your decision to follow Loosmark into that thread just in order to criticise him on an issue that was otherwise nothing to do with you was pretty poor judgment. The same goes for Radek's decision to jump right after you. At that point there was a danger of the whole thing degenerating and you being at each others' throats again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet suspected

Would you take a look at these diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moscvitch&diff=prev&oldid=343538031 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghirlandajo&diff=prev&oldid=343509927 ? A new edit-warrior it seems. Thanks.-Galassi (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying these two accounts are just sockpuppets of each other, or sockpuppets of some other known account? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Each other I think, in this case. I briefly suspected Borealis55, but the latter in a native Russian speaker unlike the former.-Galassi (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Google

Hello again, Fut. Perf. Since you seem to know a lot about free and non-free images (Because you deleted some of mine), I wish to ask you one question: Are Google Earth and Google Maps sattelite images considered free? RM (Be my friend)

Hopefully, FP will forgive my intruding. Your question sparked my curiosity as I remember Copyright tags on the images. The answer is here. They are not free, and may be used only within the limits of the licensing terms.- Sinneed 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sinneed. Yes, that's my understanding too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Move articles back to main space please?

• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Alan Henson and
• Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Aaron Smith (rugby league) (working on now)

Okip (formerly Ikip) 20:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering the question and askin for an answer

Reckless? Carless? Indeed. Czeslaw Milosz, a Nobel Prize Laureate, wrote once that the Vilnius was newer ever been so much neglectet, as it was under Polish rule. Warning is noticed. A question though, just to make it clear - how did you find this edit? No allegations included. Best wishes.--Lokyz (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of 108.etc IP

Just almost clashed with you there, but that was exactly my thought - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I saw your post on AN/I that linked to the pic "Infoboxes must burn in hell" and it made me laugh out loud. The drama that goes on over what should and should not go in them is a bit too much at times. This, combined with the fact that different wikiprojects have different criteria of what can go in, makes me feel, from time to time, that they are more trouble then they are worth. Your pic summed up my feelings and did so with a great sense of humor. Thanks for brightening my editing day and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) The pic is actually best served together with the great rant by Utgard Loki I had on my user page for a while [29]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orijentolog

He just switched to a new IP [30]. Athenean (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of admin credentials

I would like to ask for a review/reversal of your admin credentials. Another user compared your sternness to North Korea judges. This behavior can not continue. History2007 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For your information, History2007 has also brought up this matter at my talk page (User talk:Ucucha#Admin behavior). Ucucha 20:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your comment on Ucucha's talk page that:

This North Korean judge strongly objects to having his true identity bandied about like this in, by now, five locations ([31] [32] [33] [34] [35]). If this goes on, I shall appeal to my admin cabal to intervene. 한국에서 악마의 심판 ☼ 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

seems to suggest that admin rights are a joke. This can not continue. I will therefore have to assume that your comments to me were also jokes. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, they were not. Something here is certainly a joke, but you seem not quite clear about what it is. 아니 한국의 농담 ☼ 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But you have failed to address my questions and concerns about your accusations. E.g. Your statement about IDIDNOTHEARTHAT was clearly incorrect since the discussion on the image talk page only had 3-4 steps. And you ignored the use of fraudulent by the other user, and just lectured me. I consider your behavior one sided, and your jokes as a sign that you do NOT, repeat NOT, take your admin resposibilities seriously and must have your admin credentials reviewed with a view to be revoked. I still maintain that your warning to me was unjust, biased and in view of your less than serious attitude must be ignored. By the way, did you notice that I was right afterall and the map had errors.... History2007 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, as stated on my talk page, if you do not explain yourself and justify your actions, I will have to assume you have no explanation and have forfieted your admin responsibilities. Why did you use IDIDNOTHEARTHAT? Why? Why do you not explain your actions but issue jokes instead? Do you feel you are above reproach? Was the other user's analogy too far off? Those judges do not have to give explanations. But I think you MUST give an explanation, or your admin responsibilities must be reviewed. I am waiting for an explanation. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Go away. You are being tedious. This is precisely the "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" mentality I referred to, and I'm not going to play your game by continuing debating you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a case of "I DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER" on your part. You can NOT pretend to act like an admin, make accusations and when someone asks a question about your accusations, just say "go away". I am waiting for an answer about your use of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Why do you not answer? I think because you know you were wrong, else you would answer instead of issuing jokes. If you do not give an answer, I will have to assume you have given up your responsibilities as an admin and will ignore your comments hereafter. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

blocking template

Hi, proofreader is requesting a blocking template as is usual? I am just passing on the message, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonistics

Hello. I have created this article, it is still in the first phase, but can you check it for technical things? Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RFAr

You've misspelt User:Rodhullandemu on the Proofreader77 RFAr.   pablo_hablo. 10:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask you a favour?

Could you kindly ask a very grateful editor which promised you something [36] – not to remove referenced text and provide more relevant comments to the edits . Thanks

• [37] – “according to the reference” –

while source cited at 8-9 row from a top clearly have “Russians” Hungarians and Jewery – same text appeared at book with ISBN 966-02-2535-0 published by Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine at p.576

• [38] – “nonsence rm”

while Time magazine ref i clearly have such string – at same time returned – non existed blog and same type “opinions” given as WP:V and WP:RS

Same style of edits comments also here [39] [40]

• [41]

It’s really not necessary to replace one not sourced string of text with another.

It’s really sad to note that is exactly in a same way as did one of the WP:EEML list member [42] - see [43] [44] ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Time magazine citation is in fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense, because it is standard scholarship that Bandera spent the War as a concentration camp inmate.-Galassi (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The ref #2 mentions Poles only in the given context. JoOdoe, You are welcome to discuss this on the appropriate talk page.-Galassi (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The source for the last 2 is simply unreliable and self-contadictory, claiming that unic committed atrocities BEFORE it was ever in existence.

USer JoOdoe has a long history of tendentious anti-Ukrainian editing, in staggering amounts on hte Ru-Wiki.-Galassi (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And as I see now has an indefinite block on ruwiki.-Galassi (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could you also kindly remind to editor about WP:V and WP:RS policy - and the fact that the WP article based on secondary RS but not on personal opinioins of the editors. So before to reach a conclusion - fact _cherrypicked_ nonsense editor should find a RS (high grade I think) which clearly indicate that the Time magazine information (as Also data of the Institute of History National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine ) is "cherrypicked_ nonsense" - while per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE this text should be included - together with claims that Bandera spent the 1939-1945 as a concentration camp inmate.

Also please advice an editor not to self nominate State Memorial Complex "Khatyn" [45] nor Auschwitz-Birkenau [46] as unreliable and self-contadictory.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also please advice editor that WP is not right place to illustrate a WP:POINT -[47] - it's really not necessary to create a one string of text article which does not proved by reference added. Even more - it ref stated "Ukrainian" - no ground exist to translate such as "Russian" ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• However - in regards to [48] - see [49] - I can see "“Moscow”, Poles , Hungarians and Jewery - have you? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction and self-revert promise [50]

[51] [52] [53]

• Could you remind an editor about promises – not to remove tag before solving reliability issue at talk page – it also included the changing ref from the online link of the concerned source to offline (as in first ref provided). Thanks
• Could you also advice editor to avoid “wholesale” revert and changing the source text meaning

Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am careful with my 1-R deal. The "dubious" tag was removed as a doubtful tertiary source was replaced by the reliable secondary one from which it quotes.-Galassi (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to find referenced text in source provided - could you specify a page number please. I still quess when M.Logusz "The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945". became WP:RS - see that comment from [54]. Even more strange - which relation The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945 has to Bandera bio???Jo0doe (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One more time

[55] - could you kindly remind to editor - if the sources clearly stated (even pages given - p.261-262 and 149-150) - it's no reasons to comment a wholsale revert as "unsourced". ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• see that nice edits [56] - especially nice data - Born in 1898 In 1912, he completed his studies in the Military Academny in Vienna. :) All sources fails to WP:RS and WP:V (simply copy-paste from ukr-WP). While added source * І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 p.261-262 does not prove anything from article text (excluding may be date of birth:(). Any suggestions?Jo0doe (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • [57] - WP:SYN - WP:OR - text of Patrilyak does not bear any "Polish-Jewish" words and gives 1917 for graduation and other name and rank ans type of military institution. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Jo0doe, don't waste our time. We are working on the article. There are A LOT of sources, and there is no reason to prefer the ONE that fits YOUR POV. BTW, Yary article has a nice talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Yary, as yet unusused. ANy reason you wouldn't like to break it in? -Galassi (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You can save our time simply by following WP principles. You know Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science nor Shevchenko University does not reflect alleged “POV”. Please indicate me a “LOT” of sources which endorsed by Scholar Council of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science and Scholar Council of the Kyiv Shevchenko University at once? I’m not an admin to deal with repeated blind wholesale reverts of sourced texts , WP:OR, WP:SYN and source misuse to cover such not allowed at WP practice. Please behave Jo0doe (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • [58] - OUN official Z.Knysh declared as "historian", OUN-B official P.Mirchuk also. Editor eventually visit Koblenz and seen / R 58/214 f. 69. - so draft own conclusion about it:) But Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science sources data ommited at all.Jo0doe (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Promices?

[59] disruptive edit while - I even add a citation from p.161 In latter part of the war there is also no question that the OUN-B and UPA ... adhere to side of the retreating Germans which preceded the text given after [60].Thanks for any actions - or advice.Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ani Notice.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name (abbreviated as FPS) in that same ANI. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with pic

Hi. Thanks for responding. I have explained the problem here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. IZAK (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User:pournick

Hello. I think you should look at these edits: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

this user is going to put this map to this every single page that related to iran. but according to this map which is a work of Texas university and even this one which shows the geography of Iranian languages, his map is wrong in most places. you can compare them. after all his map doesn't have a single source. I notice him about his edits in his Talk page but he didn't even listen to me and just say that this references are wrong (see here) and insist to put his map and make bigger the Azeri part of image. I really need your help I think we should stop him to do this vandalism and put the last map back to pages because it was based on reliabe refrence.

he even used to delete information in some pages without any explanation page (see this and this).

Thanks Bahramm 2 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems somebody blocked him already. When he returns, he should be firmly asked to provide a detailed account of the sources for the map he favours. I have no opinion about the correctness of any of these versions, and would have hardly any means to check even if I wanted to. The CIA map at the Texas university website is certainly a decent enough source but hardly holy writ, so if anybody wants to argue that this or that map is more correct, a detailed comparison of claims and (ultimate) data sources of each would need to be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sp investigation

I've mentioned you in this spi case I've just filled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti. It concerns a possible sock account of User:Sarandioti.Alexikoua (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

POV-Pushing and Violation of Digwuren Sanctions by User:Jo0doe

Please check out this thread here where he smears a Ukrainian scholar as a Nazi collaborator. I documented what he did and how he did it in that thread. Just now he made a false claim about the misuse of sources, which I debunked here. Basically since returning from his block he has been wasting many editor's time tracking down his various claims. About 3 weeks ago I addressed Moreschi about User:Jo0doe's behavior since his return but Moreschi seems to have disappeared and has not responded either way (I am not "block-shopping", I waited 3 weeks for Moreschi to respond either way and he hasn't done so). Jo0doe had been blocked for a year on English wikipedia for just such behavior and has been permanently banned from Russian wiki for the same reason. He is currently under Digwuren sanctions ("Jo0doe (talk · contribs) blocked for a year. See [67]. Moreschi (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)) and seems to be violating them by engaging in such behavior. Would a block be in order? If not, should I go to AN/E? I feel as if I've wasted enough time dealing with Jo0doe and that the obvious nature of his violations don't necessarily make going through the entire AN/E process necessary. But I defer to your opinion. Thanks for any help.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CrossFit

An editor has made some major changes to the recently-unprotected CrossFit article. Could you take a look? Woogee (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the heads-up, yet another single-purpose account, but many of their changes were rather obvious necessary cleanup improvements, so I couldn't say at first sight that it's disruptive. Will need to be watched for any new attempts at inserting glorification though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know nothing about the company, so I was just concerned that being an spa they might be continuing the edit war, but if you're satifsied, then no prolemo. Thanks.  :) Woogee (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusing admin priviledge: Iota

Meanwhile abusing admin priviledge to lock an article because of an alternative explanation lacking a better souce is considered perfectly polite? Konfino (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? What admin privilege? I used semi-protection to keep out a banned user, over a totally different issue. You were, and still are, perfectly able to edit the article just as much as I am. With you, I am having a simple editorial discussion. I'll check your sources now. BTW, please note that we use bottom-posting in discussion threads: new postings go to the bottom of the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Bulgarian and Macedonian

Hi. I understand you have an expertise on linguistics. Can you take a look here? Is it OK with you? --Factuarius (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The new user who created it for Mkd seemed to know what they were doing, and the merger of Mkd and Bg coverage was done by User:Kwamikagami, who is probably one of the most competent editors we have for this kind of thing. Treating the two languages together seems well justified, given their similarity. Why do you ask? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically for what you mentioning at the end, but if you find it justified, it's OK with me. About my last rv, you are right, I indeed overlooked it, thanks. But BTW something doesn't fit with that particular user. Either he is a WP:genius and we will have a new admin in three months or this is not a 2.5 months old user. I hope to be just a (very) old IP editor, but again this is Balkans.. Thanks anyway --Factuarius (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Τι, ο Πτολίων, να μην είναι καινούργιος? Α μπα, τέτοιο πράγμα, ιδέα σου, πως σου ήρθε... ;-) Σοβαρά όμως, δεν ξέρω ποιος είναι, αλλά έχω κάτι υποψίες ας πούμε. Μη φοβάσαι, είναι εντάξει τύπος. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(!) Γενικά δε θέλω να το συζητάω αλλά αφού μιλάς Ελληνικά, θα το παραδεχτώ: Το πάλεψα, αλλά έχω το πρόβλημα που έχουν όλοι οι ηλίθιοι: Δεν θεωρώ εντάξει τύπους τους πολύ έξυπνους τύπους.[68][69][70] [71]. Αλλά πάλι όπως είπες μπορεί και νάναι καλό παιδί. --Factuarius (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Pournick again

This user evaded the previous block by using another account (User:Noofoozi) to edit in pages like Tabriz. Now he is using these accounts, together with IP account user:188.158.193.106 to vandalize several pages (see for example this edit). after all he is going to put his map again in the articles without even discuss with other users.(see here)Bahramm 2 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Petri Krohn ANI discussion

Fine, however you may want to collapse all comments from other individuals who remain topic banned under Arbitration enforcement, pending resolution of this issue. Cheers, Martin (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

again User:Pournick

this user was prohibited from editing in en-wikiedia by User:Khoikhoi for one month and he was noticed that he can't edit with any shape or form.(seehere) but he is still editing with this (188.158.197.116)IP (see here). he even with this IP in my talk page change my answers.(seehere.) He even in my talk page insulting me of being chauvinist .like this one in persian language:

ویکی را مسخره احساسات شوونیستی ات کرده ای

translate:

<<you Quizing wiki by your chauvinistic ideas.>>

see here too. in yhis page as you see he said <<the user User:Bahramm 2 is kurd! (and probably chauvinist!)>>

he morever insulting me by some bad words like this one in persian language:

قدرت خاصی نمیخواد! یه کم ....های مدیران را مالاندن میخواد که کردی

translate:

<<it doesn't need special power for blocking me. it just need kissing the ass of administrators as you did.>>

he makes me really nervous I think you should extending his block. tahanks for your help.Bahramm 2 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your intervention on my behalf--- it wasn't something I expected. If you are a physicist or a physics editor, please take the time to join Wikiproject physics.Likebox (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome – but no, I know pretty much next to nothing about physics. Just a lowly linguist here. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Project Sign

Apologies, I somehow screwed up my changes to the text there and left it with the original version. I will leave it as is for now. Artw (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh nice. Removal of content under false pretenses. Well I guess it's pretty clear where your sympathies lay. Artw (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit I hadn't noticed you had removed the actual name from your restored notice (which makes it look a bit stupid for me to have restored that part). Apologies for not properly acknowledging that positive step. Perhaps a complete removal of the notice, as you've done it now on one of the pages, is in fact the best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am, to be honest, not entirely convinced. Artw (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

new email

You have at least one.radek (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nickplas

I have left you a message on my talk page, nothing important but when you have time, please check it. Many Thanks, Nick :) --Nikplas (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I am not quite sure if this deserves yout attention... I am in trouble with two editors who have two things in common: they both follow my edits, and they do nothing but blind reverts (mostly deletions of sourced and relevant texts) when they follow me. One of them is User:Ellol. It's going like this.

1. I make a new version of introduction and other changes. He makesblind revert
2. I make a number of changes to improve the article. He makes blind revert
3. I make a number of different changes fully explained at article talk page. He reverts
4. He finally made 14 edits in this article during last several months and all of them were blind reverts of texts included by me; he never added any new information to this article.

Another is User:YMB29. This is all very similar:

1. I insert fully sourced content on the topic. He makes blind revert
2. I insert other fully sourced and relevant information - He makes blind revert, with misleading edit summary
3. He made 9 edits in this article during last month, and all of them were blind reverts with removal of sourced texts included by me.
4. He does the same in a different article. I am trying to explain this once, and again in a different way. But it does not help [72]. He made 5 edits there, and all of them are blind deletions of sourced texts included by me. Almost all other edits by this user in the article space are also reverts, no matter if he follows me or someone else [73]...

I talked with the both like here and on article talk pages. I got an impression that they simply do not know much on the subjects. Therefore, they can only revert. Since you are familiar with EEML case, let me tell you this. After the repeated outings and ridiculous WP:COI accusations about me (both on-wiki and off-wiki), I feel uncomfortable editing anything related to my work. That's fine. There are many other subjects to edit. But the guys are following my edits everywhere. That's not a problem if they respect policies because I can provide all sources, but they seem to simply remove everything they do not like, no matter how well it was sourced. Biophys (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dang, this is complex. I've noticed this "apartment bombing" conflict from a distance before and I'm sure there's a lot of tendentious and unconstructive editing going on there, but I'm not sure about identifying the main culprits. Have you considered that perhaps your own contributions might get repeatedly reverted because they are themselves perceived as rather tendentious?

I'll have to ask for more time to review this. Perhaps you'd get a quicker result going to one of the noticeboards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to your second comment, I am really afraid to create more trouble at the noticeboards. But if you think this should be done, I might. No rush. If you could look at the problem during several next days and do or tell something, that would be great. Biophys (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he continue doing the same. I made a lot of changes yesterday, none of which was revert. But he simply reverted everything I did without explaining anything.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems here.

• Problem 1. Is it good when editors do nothing but reverts, and this is not vandalism fight but removal of important and sourced texts? For example, this guy starts his every day from revert: February 20,February 21,February 22,February 23. I do not do it (see my series of constructive edits). He does. He reverts even though I compromised with him yesterday on almost everything and corrected this accordingly: [74].
• Problem 2. These two users were active participants of EEML case and now they follow me. For example, Ellol did not edit much in the "bombings" article (except reverts). Maybe he wants to replace Offliner? I do not know.
• Problem 3. You asked: "Have you considered that perhaps your own contributions might get repeatedly reverted because they are themselves perceived as rather tendentious? ". Yes, I can agree, especially with word "perceived". That's why we have rules, like RS and NPOV. Consider a user who goes through a number of articles to remove important and sourced facts only because he considers such facts/information biased. I do not do it. But they do precisely this. Of course I realize that not everything belongs here. For example, obvious content forks or long opinion pieces by non-notable people we do not even have articles about must be removed. But this is not the case.Biophys (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• An update. He is trying to escalate the conflict by following my edits in other articles and removing reliably sourced information (see text at the bottom of the diff with refs to New York Times and others: [75]).Biophys (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Same here.Biophys (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In case if you need some background information here it is. This is very old staff though. There was also a suspicious email to me with concerns about my health during the EEML case, and it was signed by ellol's name, but he said it was his impostor (and maybe it was). This user constantly pushes me from any areas he does not want me to edit, and that is basically anything related to modern Russian politics.Biophys (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how Biophys portrays himself to be the victim here... He has been edit warring and pushing his POV the same way he did before the EEML case. Looks like he learned nothing. Me and others involved in that case warned that he would continue to do the same things on wiki if he is not punished.[76]
In the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, after months of laying low (during and after the case), he again comes in to sneakily insert his previous edits [77][78], which are basically reverts to his previous text from September [79] (though it is hard to tell when doing the direct comparison since the order of the text has been rearranged)... He also continues tag teaming in the EEML fashion; getting a user who never edited the article before to revert for him: [80][81]
In the Red flag article he tried to insert his POVed jokes [82], even though all users on the talk page tell him that it is unappropriate.[83]
What does he do then? He simply goes over to the Red Banner article to insert the same jokes because he knows not a lot of people edit there.[84] On the talk page [85] he refuses to provide what he has been asked and continues to edit war.[86][87]
Obviously he is as disruptive as he was during the EEML days. -YMB29 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#WP:OFFER unblock request of MyMoloboaccount

Hi - as one of the blocking admins, you might be interested in this. Regards,  Sandstein  22:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you wrote at ANI that Molobo was the owner and creator of the EEML. AFAIK that was Digwuren? You are however correct that he is centrally involved with that list. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick question: is it unreasonable to ask MyMoloboaccount to agree to a checkuser making sure there have been no socks since he was blocked - as a sign of good faith on MyMoloboaccount's part? Or is that counted as an unfair request? I've not had dealings with this kind of thing before, and don't want to suggest it if it's not allowed - I don't mind looking foolish (I'm a new admin, after all, it's my job!), but I'd rather do it on this talk page where not so many people will see it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. We could do that of course, with the proviso that CU usually doesn't do self-requested checks – I guess the threshold for running checks will be generally lower for formerly banned users with a past history of socking, but an actual check will still make more sense if there's been a concrete suspicion. Which, in this case, I'm not aware of. I haven't heard of any suspicious new accounts in the Polish camp since the summer. My personal concern with this unblock request is really not so much the danger of socking, but the POV pushing and overall contribution to the bad climate in the field, which the EEML case was meant to curb. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the quick response! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn

Hi FPaS, can you please advise if this is normal -- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#Lifting_community_ban_on_Petri_Krohn -- it has already been archived without being closed off. I don't think it is normal, nor fair, that such a thing should be automatically archived, and the user in question not being advised of any outcome - i.e. just left hanging. I know this was archived by a bot, but could you possibly reinstate it on the ANI board so that discussion can continue and consensus be gained on the issue at hand. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

POV-Pushing and Violation of Digwuren Sanctions by User:Jo0doe

Please check out this thread here where he smears a Ukrainian scholar as a Nazi collaborator. I documented what he did and how he did it in that thread. Just now he made a false claim about the misuse of sources, which I debunked here. Basically since returning from his block he has been wasting many editor's time tracking down his various claims. About 3 weeks ago I addressed Moreschi about User:Jo0doe's behavior since his return but Moreschi seems to have disappeared and has not responded either way (I am not "block-shopping", I waited 3 weeks for Moreschi to respond either way and he hasn't done so). Jo0doe had been blocked for a year on English wikipedia for just such behavior and has been permanently banned from Russian wiki for the same reason. He is currently under Digwuren sanctions ("Jo0doe (talk · contribs) blocked for a year. See [88]. Moreschi (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)) and seems to be violating them by engaging in such behavior. Would a block be in order? If not, should I go to AN/E? I feel as if I've wasted enough time dealing with Jo0doe and that the obvious nature of his violations don't necessarily make going through the entire AN/E process necessary. But I defer to your opinion. Thanks for any help.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I've cited 5 sources (PhD in history own memoire of person). At his memoirs (v 1 p.351-352) emigre scholar admit his voluntary collaboration with Nazi from November 1941 till 1945. Last time same editor (which resently insert [89] hoax in WP) accuse [90] Ph D in history highly prized by Jewish Foundation of Ukraine as "Russian nationalist writer". As about"which I debunked here" - note distinction between 1941 Bandera's OUN and Austrian Galicia (pre 1917) and interwar Poland (pre 1939) and the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine (pre 1917) late imperial Austria, imperial Russia, interwar Poland, interwar Romania??? Guess about how this text related to OUN leader [91] - a leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) which collaborated with Nazi Germany. And note - editor repatedly refuse to provide an exact page number(s) for sources he used. Also - editor has beet caught several time for biased OR [92] sometimes covered by partisan sources - [93], [94] . Thank youJo0doe (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to chase all of Jo0doe's dishonesty here, I'll just start from the first example. He claimed about me, above, "(which resently insert [95] hoax in WP)" and posted the diff from an edit I made on February 3rd that included alleged testimony by Stella Krenzbach, which was referenced to a paper delivered at a conference at the University of Illinois (see here). However, after I confirmed on February 5th that another source considered this testimony to have been a hoax, I wrote that in the article, here (the bottom of my edit) and later that day moved the section out of the article entirely. As can be seen by the edit history here, JD has subsequently edited the article numerous times after my changes and, given his interest in this article, must have been aware of them. Yet he chose to ignore my later edits and just provided the diff to the first one. Therefore it seems obvious that he is deliberately painting a false picture of what I had done. This is a perfect example of his style of editing, cherry-picking bits of information to paint false pictures, disruptions, and battlegrounding and evidence that he has not learned from his one year block. Moreschi stated that he had been tempted to ban Jo0doe outright after he had been disruptive on another article (see here) but left before following through. Perhaps it's time.Faustian (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Recently - mean this year and this month - as for old hoax - see [96] "Krohmaliuk" "source". Again -see an attempt to debunk scholars conclusions [97] happened on February 5th . So - if you look at this Summer 2009 diff [98] - you can point out the source (Friedman, P. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12, , 1958–59) was used - source which bear a conclusion about hoax - but this conclusion was deliberatelly ommited again -see that nice topic[99] here. Again see [100] and compare with text at p.161 [101] started from In latter part of the war there is also no question that the OUN-B and UPA - see clearly noted 1944 events given as "summary" for 1939. Could you also ask an editor about a source which backed his last block-shopping -which RS claims that Ph D in history highly prized by Jewish Foundation of Ukraine [102] was a "Russian nationalist writer". Which relation has text about late imperial Austria, imperial Russia to a leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B appeared in Late 1940) which collaborated with Nazi Germany.Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding a false accusation of block shopping to the typical dishonesty, I see.Faustian (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• [103] -

Do we need to got through months of arbcom and other bureacracy for what sems to be black-and-white example of an extensive history of disruptive, nationalistic POV-pushing, cherry-picking, etc.? [104] How long will this be allowed to continue? And see same shopping at Alex Balacherev page. And another example of the false information [105] inserted in WP - OUN-M never created nor "Roland" nor "Nachtigall" - both unit created by Bandera's OUN-R for AbwehrJo0doe (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[106] - see Friedman, P. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation, YIVO Annual of Jewish Social Science v. 12 for 2006 - while even in 2010 editor refuse to provide page for "many Jews". Thank youJo0doe (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of false accusation of block shopping, this one by using an example from 2008 when an admin did not respond so I asked around. If this admin does not comment, after a few days I will go to ANE and you will again falsely accuse me of block-shopping, right?Faustian (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• So - PhD in history highly prized by Jewish Foundation of Ukraine [107] was a "Russian nationalist writer"... Friedman, P. stated "many Jews was saved by UPA"... OUN-M formed Nachtigal... And books about person including his own momoirs are irrelevant about same person [108]... And T-34 weight was 46 tonns [109]. So editor prefer to "go to ANE" rather then cite a page and source requested many times--Jo0doe (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More examples of false claims and disruptions above.Faustian (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• As same as "Western Ukrainian clergy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church were a hereditary tight-knit social caste that dominated western Ukrainian society from the late eighteenth until the mid twentieth centuries" at western-ukrainian towns like Lutsk Volodymyr-Volynskyi and many others Western-Ukrainian Cities at the Russian_Empire. See [110] List started from name ... Isn`t strange?Jo0doe (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting this guy's talk page with irrelevent claims isn't very nice.Faustian (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Highly relevant - just another example of the false information inserted in WP - so which source(s) clearly statated about "alleged" [111] or it again was Original conclusion of the editor? Could you clearly indicate source and page for your edit - here. Thank you--Jo0doe (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LaGrandefr

Hi. I'm not sure how to approach this - can you please advise? You blocked [[112]] User:LaGrandefr for one week, for "persistent ideological attitude and permanent edit warring". His block expired, and the first edit he made since then was to go right back to Tibet and revert[[113]], without comment, to the version he supported against consensus when he was blocked. Bertport (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

nikplas (again)

Hello. I create a test page for prof. Liritzis as I had told you. This is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikplas/Ioannis_Liritzis. Please, is it easy for you to check it before the final upload? thanks. Nick :) --Nikplas (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on your clarification

So are you saying that by requesting a frivolous/obvious clarification of their editing restriction, User:Abd has successfully avoided enforcement? Did you consider that they were banned for 3 months for same and also admonished for "personal attacks" and "failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors" (this time against me). -- samj _in^out 20:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I was going to say something to this effect before, but User:EdJohnston did a better job than I would have here:

Any block of Abd would be intended to deter his future involvement in cases where he is not a party. If he will accept the verdict that his participation here was against the restriction, then no block would be necessary. Unclear whether he will accept that.

I think in both this case and the LirazSiri/TurnKey situation, an admission of guilt would go a long way towards resolving the problems without excluding motivated contributors. Unfortunately I doubt it's going to happen (in either case). -- samj _in^out 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another watch out

I'm sure you realise what's going on, but a disruptive editor is clearly trying to goad and bait you, and draw you into a dispute in order to neutralise you. I wouldn't respond at this point - that's one mistake WMC made. I wish you luck. Verbal chat 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For clearing up disruptions.Faustian (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ask for semi-protection of Rumi

hello, my friend. according to these vandalism that done by IP users and even some new users. (see[114], [115], [116] and [117]) I Just want to ask you for semi-protection of this page from further vandalism by IP users. could you please do this? rhanks for your listening. with Regard Bahramm 2 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent block of Abd

As discussed here. Upon reviewing the edit that you reference I fail to see how this can possibly be construed as a violation of his sanctions. He is (a) discussing himself, (b) discussing himself in a purely hypothetical context, and (c) is making a relevant on-topic point within the context of a DR request where he was clearly the originating party. He doesn't mention anyone at all so how is this "discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party" on his part? Your claim is highly questionable. Unless you can substantiate a clear violation of his sanction here I would respectfully request that you unblock him. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a report at AN here. --GoRight (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

CrossFit, again

We've got another SPA making major edits to the CrossFit article. Care to take a look? Woogee (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your intervention in the most recent continuation of the Continuation War. Long live the Bloody Gebnya! :-) --Illythr (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's been a discussion about the above on my talk page; guess it makes sense to leave a courtesy notification here... :-\ --Illythr (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was an inappropriate joke, one that he wound never try on a Russian-speaking administrator.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know of no Russian rouge admins, neither here, nor on ruwiki, unfortunately. I do remember complaining about the lack of Кровавая Админская Гэбня as a ruwiki equivalent of WP:ROUGE, though. No Russian admins were hurt in the making of that post. --Illythr (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But you did not call any person "Bloody KGB henchman" in this diff. You proposed to create an institution of "Bloody KGB" on ruwiki. Fine, let's consider this matter closed.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The sock again

The sock, again. Sole Soul (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fut.

Hi fut. long to see you. I will be back for a while on wiki (bad fortune lol). Please can I have your say on Talk:Souliotes, either your comment, or just a personal opinion. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum

Hi. Hetoum I (talk · contribs) is back after his block expired, with the same IP 216.165.33.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please have a look. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Biocentrism (ethics vs. cosmology)

Hi Fut. Perf --

I don't know if you remember the move discussion at Biocentrism, but I think the agreement was that we would do a disambiguation pending article traffic statistics for each article. As I predicted, the cosmology article is receiving significantly less traffic, than the article for the ethical sense. Do you think it would be appropriate at this point to go ahead and make the ethical sense the primary topic now, with a hatnote pointing to the cosmological sense? What should I do about this? Should I just start another move discussion? On which page?

Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The traffic links you gave above are those for the readers who come to the two target pages directly from wikilinks elsewhere, without going through the dab page. Remember I created those special hidden redirects for counting the direct traffic from the dab page? Their hit rates are at here and here. On this count, the two targets are pretty equal, with occasional sharp peaks for the "cosmology" sense. (Incidentally, you might notice that the combined total for the two redirects is lower than the count for the dab page itself. That means some people find the dab page sufficient reading and never move on to the target articles – possibly, I guess, because what they are really after is the "ethics" sense, and the dab page already provides a sufficiently clear definition of it that may be enough for some readers). In any case, I'm personally not seeing a clear priority of the ethics sense, at least not one that's strong enough to force primary-topic treatment. Of course you are free to initiate another move discussion – I'd say the best place would be the dab page's talk page. But my personal recommendation would be to leave things as they are; it's not really a hugely important issue anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- I didn't have this page on my watchlist, and forgot that I had posted this here. Thanks for pointing out the correct traffic stats. I will, as you recommended, leave things as they are. Thanks! -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To Απαγορευμένο

Check this out! It is about the new "film" of Julia Alexnadratou. It would be better to have it deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimboukas (talk • contribs)

Indeed, thanks for the notification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arvanitic Alphabet

I hope that the next time you see the source before reverting. The previous version was using exactly the same source as this one. As the source has changed, the page should be rewritten.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, what is the source for your edits? There is no one, is it?Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting for a source and an argumentation. Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, please elaborate it more. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you drop by Talk:Robert Lanza to help break a deadlock?

Sinneed and I seem to have an intractable disagreement about editing on the Robert Lanza article. Could you drop by the page again and the discussion on Talk:Robert Lanza to offer a third opinion to help settle the disagreement? If not, can you help me to find an editor who might be able to do so? I believe there is a standard Wikipedia method for soliciting outside, neutral editors to help adjudicate disputes, but I don't know how it works. Thanks.142 and 99 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Block of Gilabrand

You posted a message on Gilabrand's talk page saying you blocked her for 48 hours. Her block log says she hasn't be blocked and she's been editing since; am I missing something? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Must have forgotten to actually press that button, being so busy with all the notifications. Thanks for notifying me. I've commented on G.'s talk page now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint

Your biased support of ABD is unacceptable. As far as I can tell, ABD changed edits three times in 24 hours and accused me of vandalism. Let me know when you threaten to block him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.171.11 (talk • contribs)

LOL. [118]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum again

216.165.33.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Hetoum, back to edit warring. Grandmaster 07:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

76.191.230.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also looks quite suspicious, could also be Hetoum or his meatpuppet, as it traces to a geolocation similar to 75.84.198.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Grandmaster 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaban Demiraj

Shaban Demiraj, i really dont doubt he has contributed to respectable publications, but such a pattern as talked of in the article page is not a rarity. Megistias (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An update

Since you are keeping tabs on EE matters... Is it : a threat (last phrase)? (this is whole conversation [119]).

That was also very tense ("who are you working for?"). Interestingly enough, this user said he is related to this user you know, if only I understood him correctly (that's the entire conversation: [120]). Biophys (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're lying now? I did not say I was related to that user, that's entirely a creation of your own imagination. And I explained what I meant with that comment twice already[121][122] (I did not ask "who are you working for", another lie). If you can't understand by now then that's not my problem. LokiiT (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise: Can you please do something about this? I do not need Biophys going around spreading lies about me and trying to pry into my real life identity. LokiiT (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

He said that, something that I never did. Then he explained what he means, noticing his sock puppet case and my deleted page (which you may easily check as admin if needed). If these users are not related, I am really at loss what he wanted to tell in the first diff: [123] (he tells "me", and the deleted page indeed mentioned them both - that was just a note for myself). But this is hardly important. I noticed it just in case.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If I had said I was some other user, then it should be pretty easy to provide that diff where I said it, right? Same goes for that made up quote that you attributed to me. This is no mystery, you simply said things that were not true. And if you're going to continue to deny that you ever accused me of working for the GRU, I couldn't care less. It's entirely irrelevant. But everyone already knows about your "list" of supposed government workers, related to the EE cabal case. LokiiT (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point. I go around "spreading lies"? First of them, Saiga12 (talk · contribs) came to my talk page uninvited with this. Forty minutes later LokiiT came to my talk page uninvited with this. I usually do not respond to ridiculous claims, but Saiga12 was very insistent and reverted me several times on my talk page. Fine, I replied. I asked LokiiT to stop: [124] but he responded with even more ridiculous claims.Biophys (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I came to your talk page because you blindly reverted my edit with no explanation after never even having edited that article before. This is something I brought up in the EE mailing list but some how you got off scott free. Seems nothing has changed. LokiiT (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[Since Arbcom asked to discuss everything on wiki...]. Yes, that's the thing. Different subjects are owned by several partly overlapped groups. Some guys (like ellol - see my previous note above) own articles related to Putin. If I tried editing Putin, they would eat me alive, as they did with Muscovite99. Others control Caucasus-related subjects. My first attempt to edit anything in this area triggered this response. No, it was not revert: see the diff [125].Biophys (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, guys, can you just give me some breathing space for a moment. Before I go on looking at the disputes, let me just try to get this thing about "Vatutinki" and the "GRU" clarified, and please both of you do me a favour and just answer my questions. So, this guy A.K. said he lived in that place. Biophys, in his "socks" subpage and on the CU case, claimed that "Krawndawg (talk · contribs) and Offliner (talk · contribs)" were socks of A.K., and strongly implied A.K.'s living place meant a connection to GRU. The checkuser case found that Krawndawg was a sock of LokiiT. Yes, that means Biophys indirectly claimed a connection between LokiiT and the GRU. No, it does not mean LokiiT, by understanding the GRU claim to be referring to himself, admitted he was related to A.K. – Question to LokiiT: did you admit that Krawndawg was your sock? Question to Biophys: how did A.K. enter the whole picture in the first place? I see no evidence indicating sock involvement by him anywhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I admitted Krawndawg was me and I have long since acknowledged my mistakes and moved on. And thank you for clearing that up. LokiiT (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I had only two questions. 1. Is this a threat (last phrase) by another user (not LokiiT); see whole conversation [126]? 2. This notice by LokiiT I think go beyond civility: [127]. But he changed the subject by making this quite misleading remark [128]. This is all. I should not be talking about another user because this only complicates the issues.Biophys (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A.K. was mentioned in my deleted user sub-page noted by LokiiT during the conversation: User:Biophys/sock. I even forget about it, but LokiiT remembered and mentioned this as a "proof" that I accused him of being connected with secret services. But I did not. This is all so ridiculous! Biophys (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, A.K. was mentioned in this report [129]. According to Thatcher, he was "too old for direct comparison". So, there was no proof either way.Biophys (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find ridiculous is Biophys' continuous harassment and stalking, and the fact that he's gotten away with it every single time with not so much as a warning. (Note the part where I say he stalks my edits and blindly reverts me in articles he's never edited in before, just like he did again three days ago[130][131]). And now he comes to an admin's page in order to get me in trouble over some flimsy interpretation of something I said, after he provoked me there in the first place, all the while lying through his teeth about A: My identity, B: A quote I did not make, and C: A serious accusation he made against me in the past...Ridiculous indeed. LokiiT (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Even as I was typing this he was busy reverting my changes with no explanation, while giving a misleading edit summary.[132] (You can see the specific changes I'm talking about with my following edit[133]). That's another thing I went over in my above linked evidence page. He makes a huge revert with no explanation, with only mention of something minor in the edit summary. (And this specific edit perfectly justifies what I was saying about him whitewashing the articles of criminals, since this quote is properly sourced and very relevant.) LokiiT (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you want to bring the EEML case back, here it is with all diffs. Remember Peter from the Netherlands? He does not edit any more, after such your comments. That's became a habit. First him, now me.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line. Whatever our content disagreement might be, they do not justify threats and personal attacks.Biophys (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you were going to follow up on this. LokiiT (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he finally forced me to do this. You are also very welcome to review my recent edit history on the Chechnya and terrorism-related subjects [134]. If they are not significant improvements, then I do not know what improvement is.Biophys (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your recent positive contributions in the Umarov article. If only we could have started with that, or even just a discussion, instead of going straight to reverts. Also, I want to apologize for implying you support or sympathize with terrorists. That was certainly out of line. LokiiT (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Guys, I'm sorry, but I'm just not finding the strength to read through all of this and make a decision here. Okay, I know this must be frustrating for both of you, having invested so much time arguing your cases here on my page, but then again, maybe you are both lucky, because I have the feeling if I mustered enough determination to tackle this I'd likely end up banninating you both... - Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you're going to ban me over a minor WP:CIV infraction that was the result of being antagonized then so be it. But you should know that his harassment continues. LokiiT (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh nonsense

Dodona? [135]. Athenean (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PAOK F.C.

Can you please see this: [136], read this: Talk:PAOK_F.C.#PAOK_F.C._finished_4th_in_the_2008-2009_Super_League_Greece, and protect the article or the team's position last year from endless editing by unregistered users? I mean, the league's rules clearly state that the overall position is defined by play-offs results; I keep the regular season position, and add the overall one, but, every time some unregistered ip change it the way they like it... Heracletus (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bs1996

Files are not my forte, but this ANI thread may be of interest to you. I've warned the editor not to upload any more copyvios. Can you go through their uploads and sort the mess out please? Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

promacedonia.org

Hello there, why the website is not acceptable i don't think it is UNreliable source? Thank you. --Подпоручикъ (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a nationalist advocacy site. The materials hosted on it are, for the most part, either copyright violations, or cheap nationalist propganda literature, either expressions of modern Bulgarian-Macedonian revisionism or, worse, WWII-era fascist pro-annexation propaganda. Unfortunately, much of the editing of Macedonia-related articles by Bulgarian users here on Wikipedia has been by an endless series of single-purpose accounts whose whole idea of the topic has been informed almost exclusively by this and similar sites, and who did little else but plastering links and quotes from them all over the place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is not a problem for wikipedia, after the materials are not on wiki servers; Here are the greek POV [137] and Republic of Macedonian's one [138], but do the "endless series of single-purpose accounts" are the bad to read/post, or those who havent at all? Also, most of the books in promacedonia are written by wellknown authors (bulgarian and nonbulgarian) and some of them are written by participants of the history events. There can be find even greek, serbian and republic of Macedonia POV books, so what is acctualy the problem of quotation books according the NPOV wiki rules? P.S. Sorry for my bad english.--Подпоручикъ (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright indeed is a problem, because Wikipedia has a policy of not linking to sites when those sites host copyright violations. In the (rare) cases where the works on promacedonia are genuine, legitimate academic texts, it is preferable to just quote those works in their original print version, without a link to the mirror. However, works with titles like "the new national liberation struggle in Vardar Macedonia" or "Macedonism and the resistance against it" are quite obviously expressions of a heavily biased nationalist POV, and as such can only be used if their claims are framed and attributed with strict adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The fact that some of these works may be written by "participants of the events" doesn't make them more useable, quite to the contrary: such works are primary, not secondary sources, and as such must be handled with even greater care, because their authors naturally will have strong personal POVs on the issues they write about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont know if there is statistic that shows the % of using the copyright violations, but for sure is more then 30%. Anyway i think you made me clear of what you think. Thank you again for shared time to explain me. --Подпоручикъ (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI NYB and FPAS

See [139] — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople not Istanbul

I understand why you are substituting "Istanbul" for "Constantinople". But these biographies are of people who were born at a time when Istanbul did not exist. Associating their names with Istanbul is not right historically. The historic context is more important than whether or not the reader knows where Constantinople is today. If you have a problem with linking to Constantinople because the article does not contain information up to 1900 then I'll gladly expand Constantinople so that it does. Giving the excuse that the Constantinople section doesn't adequately cover its history up to the mid 1800s (so I'll use Istanbul, which didn't exist at that time, instead) is poor form (you're substituting Constantinople which doesn't have enough info but does have the historical context, for Istanbul which was never relevant in the first place). Your approach makes me think that you have a biased POV since it is not based on historical fact. People that read these biographies automatically assume that the person was born in Istanbul which identifies them as Turkish which is not the case. Moreover, the way that you word your changes makes them appear Turkish which is not the case. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that "Istanbul didn't exist" is plain nonsense. You are again mixing up names and things. The name "Istanbul" hadn't yet been widely adopted for the city in western languages in the 19th century. It was of course already called like that in Turkish. And it is called like that retrospectively by modern scholarship when dealing with that period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why were all diplomatic communications and all postal communications addressed to "Constantinople" and not "Istanbul" up in to the late 1920s and early 1930s? Then there is the matter on the "Istanbul" page of "Istanbul's" history starting from prehistoric times. What sort of nonsense is that? Constantinople's and Byzantium's history have been hijacked and put across as Istanbul's history. It's all nonsense and propaganda. The kind of propaganda instigated by that pederast Kemal Ataturk. Or would you prefer me to use "despot" or "tyrant". "Pederast" is factual historically. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Read previous discussions, among them Talk:Names of Istanbul#That 1930 "renaming"... and Talk:Istanbul/Archive 4#Proposed guideline. In the 19th century, the city was called Istanbul by Turks, Constantinople by Greeks, and most frequently Constantinople (though side by side with "Stambul" and other variants) by western foreigners. In 1930, the Turkish state passed a law that demanded foreigners should likewise switch to using "Istanbul", which most of them did subsequently. But you are still ignoring the point: the issue is not what speakers of English did back in the 19th century, but what speakers of English in reliable modern publications do now when talking of the 19th century. What they do is this: they use "Istanbul" and "Constantinople" variably. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? So why are you claiming that men born in the early 1800s were born in Istanbul and Albania? What's your excuse? Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

Epirus not Albania

Ditto regarding Epirus and Albania. These people were not born in Albania. They never lived in Albania. Albania did not exist in their lifetimes. Why mention Albania in an article that is not about anything to do with Albania? Particularly when the linked locations link to articles about towns where Albania is mentioned. Once again your approach makes me think that you have a biased POV since it is not based on historical fact. People that read these biographies automatically assume that the person was born in Albania which identifies them as Albanian which is not the case. They were born in the Ottoman Empire. Claiming that the Ottoman Empire was a big place and that people need to know that they were born in what is modern day Albania is a poor excuse. Moreover, the way that you word these changes makes it look like these people were Albanian which is not the case. Just wanted to get that off my chest as well. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More nonsense. Of course "Albania" existed. Not as a state, but as a geographical concept. This means it existed just as much as Greece, Italy, Germany and many others. And the issue is that readers need to be given a point of orientation, which can only be done by naming the modern country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that a geographical concept takes priority over the actuality which was the Ottoman Empire. Albania ofcourse was spawned by the Ottoman Empire. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you also be willing to avoid using "Greece" as a geographical descriptor when talking about anything pre-1830? Or "Italy", for that matter? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the ethnic and cultural identities. Ethnic identity is important. But creating pseudo-countries and pseudo-regions and renaming national identity in restrospect is dishonest. But clearly it's an approach that you support. It's not an approach that I agree with. I've never claimed that Greece existed before 1821 but the Hellenes (called Greeks by the English, I've personally never agreed with that either) existed from ancient times. I haven't got a problem with you calling Istanbul -> Istanbul but I do have a problem when you pretend that Constantinople's history is all Turkish. And don't pretend that you aren't partaking in that inventive assimilation revelry. It's plain to see. Moreover, I do not appreciate the way that you communicate to me. You stomp on me as though I am an insignificant ant. You're wasting your time. I don't squash. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've had enough of you. From now on, stay off my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock Gliabrand to assist in urgent FA promotion

Hi! I have been contacted by User:Gilabrand who is willing to give me much needed copyediting assistance at the Hurva Synagogue article. As she's unfortunaely blocked at present, I am wondering whether it would be in order to unblock her in this instance so she can help promte to FA, especially as I want to get this done asap (for March 15!). Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand can certainly be unblocked as soon as she confirms she is willing to abide by the topic ban, the way it's been explained to her (i.e., stay away from all edits touching on the I/P conflict, not merely articles that are nominally "about" the I/P conflict as a whole). Unfortunately, seeing how she reacted to the block yesterday, she didn't seem willing to consider such an acknowledgment. (Note: I might be away for much of today/tomorrow; if she makes such a commitment in the meantime and I'm not available, I have no objections against any other admin unblocking her without further consultation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider the Hurva topic as part of the I/P conflict, whether or not it touches upon it I am unsure. Chesdovi (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the article (Hurva Synagogue) focuses on the synagogues destruction during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. So, yes, it is definitely part of the I/P conflict. Factsontheground (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, yes, there's that section, but I don't see a problem with her editing the rest (and, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with her editing that section either, as long as it's really just uncontentious copyediting - but I cannot be positive that other admins would see it the same way.) Trouble is, without a clear statement from her that she'll stay out of anything potentially contentious I cannot consider an unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Persia2099 and User:Bahramm 2

I saw that you have blocked Persia2099 indefinitely. User:Bahramm 2 has exactly the same edit pattern and based on recent edits of Persia2099 in Persian Wikipedia, I'm almost sure that these two are the same. Is it possible to check them or it's too late? Alefbe (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Both might be also related to User:R1000R1000 (I'm not sure about this one). Alefbe (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues

I now noticed that Moreschi is inactive; in any case as you was one of the blocking admins as well, I ask you to investigate this issue. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To FP@S - I fail to see how this was in any way a breach of the Arb Com imposed topic ban. But yes, Jacurek shouldn't have written that and perhaps the block is deserved based solely on the WP:PA nature of it. Of course, if you're going to go around blocking people for making personal attacks on other users' talk pages than how about doing something about the extremely rude and offensive personal attack made by Dr. Dan here: [140] (watch the video to the end and note that this is in response to a question, and a follow up to a completely false accusation made by DD). If this isn't gross incivility, and a naked display of contempt for another editor than I don't know what is. I would find it in extremely bad taste no matter who made it and whom it was directed at.radek (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock

CaptainGio (talk · contribs) is yet another sock. This SPA reverted Khanate of Erevan with his very first edit to this version by the IP sock account: [141] I believe it is not worth wasting time on CU with this. Moreschi would normally block such accounts on spot, but since his is away, maybe you can have a look? I can file a CU request too, if needed. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you semi-protect Khanate of Erevan indef? Your previous protection expired on 13 January, and banned users resumed their edit war. Grandmaster 09:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

e-mail

I've sent you a mail. cheers, --Sargoth (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbes

Hi! Would you like to have a look at the discussion here. I think you have a greater experience than me on copyvio cases, and I would like to have your opinion. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Njirlu socks

Hello Fut.! I do not know whether you keep an eye on the Aromanians article and related pages, but in the last few months, it has been the victim of a very determined fringe POV-pusher, Njirlu (talk · contribs). He has been banned, but he has created a number of apparent socks, such as Greek macedonian (talk · contribs), Victorminulescu (talk · contribs), with Ianisveria (talk · contribs) being the latest (other very likely socks include one-time users with typical names such as PhilipMakedon (talk · contribs) and GeorgeSamarina (talk · contribs)). He persistently promotes the use of "Macedonians" for the Aromanians, and tries to link them to ancient Macedonia. Today he has been going on adding irrelevant Greek politicians and generals as "Aromanians (Ancient Macedonians)" (sic). So what exactly should I do here? I posted a notice at ANi but it seems to have disappeared. Or was it the wrong place to ask for sanctions? Constantine ✍ 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't take admin action here myself (still got that silly Arbcom limitation). Best place for you to go and report this would be WP:SPI, I suppose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Scott (model)

You just deleted the article Nancy Scott (model). Could you please restore it into my userspace? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. With over 500 Playmates, I haven't had time to copy them all. Dismas|^(talk) 08:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you keep on eye on this?

I'm not sure if any lines have been crossed yet, but this thread seems to be going in not the best direction.Faustian (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

5-6th time?

Since you know Vjosë. Sulmues has added diff this website (even after it being discussed and reported) for i don't know how many times, http://www.aboutnames.ch/albanian.htm two more sites you can see in the diff.Megistias (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vjosa_common_female_name_in_Albanian:_source_is_edit-warred, the only neutral user that intervened (Andrew Lancaster) has asked that other sources be included. In fact, I added three sources to support that Vjosa is a common female name in Albanian. What's wrong with that? And according to you how do I get baby names websites that are scholarly reviewed? In addition as Andrew clearly explained there is nothing wrong with using a commercial website, whereas your rebuttal in using it is merely the fact that it's not coming from a dot org or something else. --sulmues (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly debatable, its not RS and we dont really doubt that Albanians use the name. And we wont solve it in FP's talk page.Megistias (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For a trivial and essentially uncontroversial piece of information such as the use of a certain given name, I personally see no problem with a source like that. Yes, Albanian people use all sorts of weird things as personal names, so what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Guten Tag

diff. Any ideas? Danke. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Tepelene

The Tepelene=Hellen's hill was proposed during the 19th century as tepe=hill in Turkish and elene=Helen. It was mainly supported by a scholar Aravantinos, but there is nothing scientific about that etymology so if you don't mind I'll remove it entirely.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it ok, this explanation should stay. What do you mean by saying scientific etymology? Aravatinos was a historian.Alexikoua (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a historian is different from being a linguist. His etymology is too simplistic bordering folk etymologies and ignoring many linguistic rules.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to remember Aravantinos had come up in some other discussion as the author of rather questionable etymologies before. Of course, it might well be correct, I don't know anything about Albanian word formation patterns of that sort, but it does look just a little bit too simple. As long as we don't have a clear, concrete source that can be demonstrated to be linguistically competent and soundly argued, such etymologies are better removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll remove it then.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Zjarri: It seems you have come directly to the right place to make the question.Alexikoua (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw that [142] and that's why I came to ask.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

'Pro-Greek' etc. ethnicity maps of the Balkans

Dear FPaS, I would appreciate having your opinion on my proposal made at the ‘Ethnographic map caption’ section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greek letters

I got a request here from an IP about Template:Greek Alphabet and Template:Table Greekletters, which I said I would pass on to you as the last editor involved there.

This may be the same person who a few days ago asked me here from a different IP (why me? I don't know) whether it was a good idea to have placed requested moves for all the Greek letters to modern spellings - alfa, vita, gama, thelta... I said no, it wasn't a good idea, and reverted; I suggested redirects from the new spellings might be useful, and now pass that suggestion on to you as well. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. The anon user is Wikinger (talk · contribs), a highly disruptive banned troll with an inexplicable fixation on Greek letters. Please ignore and/or roll back anything he does. Of course, no objection against creating those redirects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG, is he still around? If you notice more ip-edits from him here, please check the global contribs and give me a hint if you need some assistance rolling back on other projects. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, he's been very active. As the image on my userpage signifies, I am officially afraid of him ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoha, maybe I could borrow that penguin of yours. Now I'm afraid as well... Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at Arbitration/Biophys

Please, note that your claim that I appeared at your talk page is not fair [143], because I did not leave comments at your talk page until now. Indeed, my nickname was frequently mentioned by Biophys, but I chose not to respond.

I do not have problems with any Wikipedia user. Regards, ellol (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent reverts at GAN page

For technical reasons, could you please explain this edit (why the user is banned) here or/and here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image question

What is the maximum size for an image used under a NFR? Would you say that an image of 200 x 409 px would need to be resized? It's pretty small as it is. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any fixed rule for this. An early attempt at codification Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution" seems to have been abandoned. You could check current practice by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Non-free reduced. 400px seems within the normal range. Of course it depends on the image: essentially, it should be whatever is large enough to fulfill the intended fair-use purpose, so the level of required detail may well vary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've come across a few problems with the GAN of BOAC Flight 712 - see the GAN assesment where it is claimed that the image needs to be resized. I'm of the opinion that it is small enough already. I'm also not quite sure by what is meant by an image not having a complete FUR. It's not been challenged in almost 2 years so it can't be that bad. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Some utter weirdness about you at ANI, the threat "Faultering". SGGH ^ping! 13:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, thanks. Banned user Wikinger trying to create confusion again, by first re-using the same open proxy that was previously used for block evasion by some other user, and then blaming me for "faultering" (whatever that is) over it. LOL. Block, revert, ignore please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Historic Warrior ban

Recently I saw your decision to ban Historic Warrior and I disagree that it was justified.

What made you claiming that Historic Warrior was involved in lawyering? As far as I can see, he only used good old logics to explain the flow of events. That's not Wiki-lawyering -- i.e. referring to whatever Wikipedia policies to suppress unfavourable text and secure the favourable.

I also would like to note, that "POV pushing at talk" shall be distinguished from "POV pushing in the article", and the latter did not take place in case of Historic Warrior. Instead, a talk page is a place where different points of view can meet and be verified against facts, to the benefit of the article.

As for accusation of "permanent slow revert-warring", I am actually interested to see evidence of that, which was not provided.

Overall, it looks for me that a decision such as banning an user does ordinarily require a better justification that a voluntary decision of a single admin. Thus, I propose to unban HistoricWarrior and to open an arbitration case to test your accusations against facts and judgements of other Wikipedia editors and admins.

Regards, ellol (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I counted HistoricWarrior's reverts a while back at [144]. Back then, he numbered 94 reverts out of 162 edits at 2008 South Ossetia war and reverts still form a substancial part of his recent editing. With your statement that POV pushing in the article "did not take place", I have to strongly disagree. Almost all of his edits are either removing text unfavorable to Russia, or inserting text favorable to Russia. Additionally, his stance is made pretty clear on the talk page, where he consistently takes a strong position against Georgia and attacks anyone (source, editor or position) whom he deems pro-Georian. --Xeeron (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, I am replying to you, yet, I would like to hear a reply to my March 19 comment from user Future Perfect at Sunrise, as a person with authority in Wikipedia who should be ready to take responsibility as well.

Even if the situation is so as you are speaking, Xeeron, it's necessary to check, whether edits of Historic Warrior were fair in regards of facts. Your commentary still leaves a possibility that Historic Warrior is fair as an editor albeit has somewhat clumsy way of editing. And I am not sure that a voluntary ban by a single Wikipedia Administrator is the best possible approach. That's why I am asking for a review of Historic Warrior's activities by ArbCom, instead.

That's not merely an issue of Historic Warrior alone, but an issue threatening the whole Wikipedia. I fear that banning contributing users on arbitrary basis may become an accepted tactics.

Usually an admin issues a ban for disruptive behaviour such as vandalism. In case of Historic Warrior it's clear he is not a vandal, at the very least. That's why I ask admin Future Perfect at Sunset to unban user Historic Warrior and let that issue be solved by a broader pool of admins and editors, i.e. ArbCom. ellol (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum

128.122.90.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock of Hetoum I (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 07:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate vandal, again

Hi. Our common friend AlbiSulo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs a gentle touch... No such user (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Another editwar brewing

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Kiev&action=history . There is a Russian nationalist Voyevoda (according to his Ruwiki page) amok, removing citations he dislikes against all rules. -Galassi (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Black January page

Hello Future Pefect at Sunrise. 76.191.230.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has re-started his edit warring on Black January page again. It is a controversial article which requires consensus. I have repeatedly asked him to propose his changes on the talk page so that everyone could participate and come to an agreement but he keeps removing big chunks of text without any agreement whatsoever. Could you please look into that or semi-protect the page? Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 76.191.230.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back from his block and resumed edit warring. Plus, 216.165.33.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Hetoum, as usual edit warring on multiple pages. Grandmaster 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note on Varsovian's Talk page

Further to your note on Varsovian's Talk page a few months ago, please note my recent messages there and at the London Victory Parade Talk page. FYI I have also requested friendly guidance from Someguy1221 on this matter. Thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not repeating your accusation that I am a racist. Or did you mean to imply that I am anti-Polish in a non-racist way? What a coincidence that of the two admins which you approached with regard to this issue, one just happens to be the only admin who has ever blocked me and the other is the only admin who has ever warned me about anything. What are the chances of that happening? Varsovian (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to check on this Anon IP

I had been reverting unexplained deletions to this article[145], then I checked the Anon IP's edit history. It appears this individual has been deleting information and references[146]. I'm not sure if this warrants any action(s) or not. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent Block of 68.164.118.203

You said that this was obviously HW007, but I am not so sure. I mean the diction and sentence structure are all wrong in the anon users comments. I don't really want to go wave around AGF; but I just wanted to see from you why you think it's HW007? Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed-On his wall you said that it was his IP range that tipped you off; but how come we know where his IP geolocates too? Please don't take this as me being his sovereign advocate: I am just trying to understand the workings of wikipedia a little better. Thanks for you patience. Outback the koala (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The earlier IPs 68.164.118.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 68.164.117.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 68.164.150.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were from 2008, immediately before the HW account was created. If you check those early edits, it is quite obvious that it's the same person: at that time a genuine newbie who was first editing through IPs and then created an account continuing to edit exactly where the IPs left off. See especially [147] (the IP saying "I think I will register an account"), and then on the very next day [148] (HW's first edit, saying "people asked me to create this, so I did"), and [149] (his fourth edit, immediately continuing a discussion thread he had previously participated in as the IP, and refering back to the IP's arguments as "as I've told you many a time..."). After that, this IP range never showed up again on the Ossetia articles, only to reappear exactly the moment HW got blocked. And I cannot follow you when you say the "diction and sentence structure are all wrong" either – both the IPs back then and the present IP from that range have exactly the same style, language, ideas and agenda as HW, quite obviuosly. The identity is so quacking obvious I would probably have blocked even without the convenient confirmation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting because User:Jacob Peters comes from precisely the same geographic region - see User:69.110.222.228 and others.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, Future. Had I not asked, I would have never figured it out, since you had evidence that goes way farther back then I would have known about. If its really is HW007 as the puppeteer, it's a real shame... While I disagree with the initial block, he should know better and that there are alternatives to appealing a block. Once again, thanks for the reply. Have a good one, Outback the koala (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

IP

It's evidence that he's Deucalionite that would be helpful. I'll take your word for it as you seem very sure, and wait to see what he says. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello mister Future

I am user Ianisveria. And i do not understand why you canceled my adds at articles regard macedonians/armans/aromanians. You punished me because another user (njirlu) used my ip? A have 30 cousins who use this ip at an internet cafe. How is this possible? For it does not matter what I add ? why you delete all my adds? Thank you. (Ianisveria (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Plagiarism??

Could you give your opinion on this matter[150]? It would appear that some parts are plagiarism. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Check this out

Maybe you know more about what 83.30.127.102 (talk · contribs) was trying to accomplish? I reverted & blocked, but thought you might take a look if you hadn't noticed these edits. — Scientizzle 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And perhaps 79.184.107.203 (talk · contribs) is related? — Scientizzle 20:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum

Another SPA sock of the banned user: Shamshadin (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You Have Been Blocked

Happy April Fools Day!--RM (Be my friend) 01:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Distorting consensus at Occupation of the Baltic States

Could you look at contributions of this user as well as this and this IPs? I believe that they were sockpuppets of the WP:EEML members helping out User:Sander Säde, quite possibly one of the topic banned users or even Sander Säde himself. Do such actions warrant checking the users? If so, how can I report this? (Igny (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Igny notified me of this discussion on my talk page. As both IP's seem to originate from Australia, Melbourne, it is kinda hard to see how they could be me anonymously (I've disclosed my location - and IP addresses - previously, during last (utterly failed) sockpuppet witch-hunt). I am not in the habit of creating or using sockpuppets - nor is anyone in EEML, as far as I know. This was the strategy for EEML opponents - which was probably the reason why they steadfastly refused to have everybody involved in EEML ArbCom case to be checkusered. ISerovian is not my sockpuppet and I am happy to be checkusered to clear my name from yet another such allegation.

I am not sure if I am breaking any rules about personal information, but geographically closest person in so-called EEML to those IP's was not from Melbourne. And his IP address started with 203.*

I have not asked anyone's support in any way whatsoever. I see this just as yet another attempt by Igny to move the article after repeated failure to get support for it. As it has been pointed out great many times, Wikipedia discussions are not voting - and as the admin, who closed the last RM, said, his decision was based on arguments.

--Sander Säde 12:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Sander is under impression that he can throw around accusations of me breaking the WP rules, but if he breaks a rule, then I should just let it go. (Igny (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Care to explain which rule I have broken? --Sander Säde 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If my suspicion is true, then you have broken this rule. (Igny (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Which I haven't, your suspicions are wrong. Feel free to report me and ISerovian to checkuser, too - although it is an insult to my intelligence that if I would create a sockpuppet, it would ever be possible to catch it with a checkuser. However, like I've said, I have never created a sockpuppet and never will. Oh, and the link you gave really is not a rule. --Sander Säde 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and submitted a case here. (Igny (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

User:Notpietru

On February 19, you issued a one month block for disruptive editing to this user, his sixth block over two separate accounts. It now seems he's been engaged in block evasion. Yesterday, User:193.188.47.23 refactored the discussion relative to Notpietru's block with the comment "Taking out the trash" - diff [151] - whereupon I reverted the reversion and warned 193.188.47.23 for refactoring another editor's talk page comments. Today, Notpietru himself reverted my reversion, with the edit summary "I'll remove what I like from my talkpage - don't ever contact me again." [152] This strongly suggests that User:193.188.47.23 is Notpietru himself, something borne out by his frequent editing of Malta-based articles. Beyond that, 193.188.47.23 has himself been engaged in disruptive editing, having been warned several times for vandalism, and using hostile edit summaries such as "you dont own wikipedia. get a life!" ... all while Notpietru's block was still active, with ten edits in that period. Now of course Notpietru has the privilege of refactoring his own talk page, but he doesn't have the privilege of evading blocks through anon IPs. Bringing this to your attention seemed only proper.  RGTraynor  17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Eurominority.eu

Hi. You reverted my edit, saying with a quite categorical tone "eurominority.eu is not a reliable source at all". I was wondering what could make you be so sure.

Eurominority.eu is the website of the Organization for the European Minorities. Both the organization and its website are cited by a number of reliable sources, such as:

• The UN Refugee Agency
• This lecture of Prof. Lauri Hannikainen
• This article in The Seattle Times
• Siegfried Kiefer, coordinator of the European Counselor for Multicultural Education

Now Eurominority.eu might not be your ideal source, but in the field of stateless ethnic minorities, where reliable information is very hard to get by, I believe they're doing a pretty good job and they are recognized for it (and Wikipedia has links to them in several articles). As such, I don't think your "not a reliable source at all" is in any sort of agreement with what other sources say about them.

I won't have time and patience for follow-ups on this. If you still strongly believe Eurominority.eu is definitely not to be relied upon, so be it. Otherwise I expect you to revert yourself. It's up to you. — AdiJapan 16:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but what I have seen from eurominority they have such serious howlers I find it hard to take them seriously – like listing "Μακεδονία ξακουστή" as the Greek translation of the national hymn of ethnic Macedonians [153], or listing "Plattdeutsche" as an ethnicity [154]. They also fail to provide any documentation of their own sources, which makes claims such as those about the flags hard to assess. With ethnic flags, the minimum I'd expect from a decent source is a reliable account of who proposed the flag, who is actually using it, what its political connotations are, etc. So, sorry, as long as eurominority is the only source we have, I'd rather not revert myself here. We lose little by not showing a flag there, even if it turns out it is in fact genuinely used by some. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: take a look here about how flimsy the "research" background of the eurominority people is. Basically, just some enthusiastic amateur researcher who wouldn't accept the information he got from reliable informants (who said Aromanians weren't using a common ethnic flag), and then kept asking round until one person produced some old piece of cloth for him. Probably that's why this flag resembles a randomly decorated tablecloth so much. Essentially, this flag is an invention of eurominority – they are basically confirming here that nobody was using this flag until they themselves published it and claimed it existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

False impersonation

I guess that the account User:Future Perfect At Sunrise at el.wikipedia is just impersonating you, right? The account is blocked if it really belongs to you please verify it from your main account. --Geraki ^T_L 17:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Yes, the account with the capital "At" is User:Wikinger impersonating me. All IPs editing the Greek alphabet article before and after him are also the same person. The IPs in 83.* are his home range; all others are open proxies. Thanks for being watchful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking while confused

Do you know what is going on here: Special:Contributions/Hryber and Special:Contributions/Hrybers? Linking to vandalized versions of your talk page archive. I blocked as an obvious sock of someone out to cause trouble, then unblocked the second account when I realized I might be in over my head. Was my first instinct right, or do I owe someone an apology? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for the notification. It's Wikinger (talk · contribs), again. Please block/revert/ignore. Also B/R/I any IP that turns up editing anywhere in the account's neighborhood (including any IPs revert-warring against them), it's all the same person. If it's a 83.* IP from Poland, that's his home range; any other IP turning up anywhere near them is an open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew something was off, but couldn't figure out what. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Questioning ban of HistoricWarrior007

Hello. I questioned already the ban of user HW007, but received no reply from you.

I think that

• Long-term/infinite ban of an user who is obviously not a vandal (HW007 was obviously not a vandal, he made numerous serious contributions, he was active at talk pages) is not something which lies within the authority of a single admin.
• In your case there was certainly a conflict of interests, since you edited the same article that HW did, and issued a lifetime ban for him for editing that article -- 2008 South Ossetian War.
• That's why I propose to unban user HW007 as a temporary measure and launch the usual procedure in such cases -- ArbCom case. Let multiple users and admins review the case and make a qualified decision regarding user HW007.

Please, find some time and reply my repeated request.

Regards, ellol (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If HW wants to appeal the sanction, he is free to do so through the normal channels. I see no reason to discuss this issue with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But this issue is not only of you and HW alone. It sets an important precedent — that any user can be banned by any admin for no reasons. Or on grounds of personal perceptions or even admin's mood. It threatens the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia, and is very disruptive for Wikipedia.

That's why I make my request sounded in my previous post and ask you to reply on the matter. Regards, ellol (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite topic bans are by no means outside the routine repertoire of admin actions under the discretionary-sanctions Arbcom rules, and long-term blocks, even indef blocks, for persistent edit warring or disruptive editing have always been possible and common. Now please go do something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okey, but who can judge if there were disruptive editing? I think, it's too an ambiguous, even subjective issue and shall be determined by a community, i.e. the ArbCom. As for persistent edit-warring, it makes two to play a tango. Let's then find the opponent of the HW and topic-ban him for disruptive editing and persistent edit-warring?

Still, you did not answer a point regarding your conflict of interests in the case of 2008 South Ossetia War.

Regards, ellol (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider you among the Wikipedians towards whom I would feel an obligation of justifying my actions. This discussion is over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You are a Wikipedia Administrator, one of the people who "have been trusted with access to restricted technical features (tools)" and are "never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved."

Of course, you are not obliged to reply to me. But speaking impersonally, the questions I sounded do exist, regardless of who sounded them. And it's somewhat deplorable that you could not answer them. Even if you do not like me personally that's not an excuse.

Thanks for your time, ellol (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hetoum again

Hetoum is back as ErmeniQuzeyli (talk · contribs). I think something should be done with regard to NY University IPs. Otherwise it is pointless to block socks on a daily basis. We might as well lift the community ban, since he evades it anyway, and there's no way of enforcing it. Grandmaster 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds as if it might cause quite a bit of collateral damage, unfortunately. Could you provide a list of relevant IP ranges, so somebody could check how much legitimate traffic there is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I have already filed a new CU request on Hetoum here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I, and there's a list of relevant IPs in the archived SPI requests, here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. Most of the IPs point to NY University. It is a pity that admins, CUs and regular editors have to waste so much of their precious time to track the socks of this person almost on daily basis. I've been thinking maybe there could be a more permanent solution to the problem? Maybe someone could contact the Uni and inform that their computers are used for edit warring, death threats, racial slurs, etc in Wikipedia? I don't think they would be pleased to know that. Grandmaster 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Štip/Shtip

Hey, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Could you please see the discussion going on here at my talkpage? Relativefrequency and I disagree about the proper transliteration of Macedonian and it seems as though we won't resolve anything ourselves. Thanks and Happy Easter. --Local hero ^talk 21:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User --Nikplas (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I currently gathering info in order to update the archaeometry lemma. I have a question: Can I delete parts of the current text and replace them with new? how much intervention can I do to the existing text? Thanks in advance --Nikplas (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

This is to inform you that you are in violation of the WP:3RR with these three reversions if this continues I will seek administrative action. Thankyou and have a nice day. --EmersonWhite (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)