User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 22

?

What is trolling? Respond on my talk page please.S.V.Taylor (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I will stop, someone has explained what I have been doing and I get it now.S.V.Taylor (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

FutureP could you please join this discussion. The Ottoman demographics of Yanya vilayet are being removed by Alexikoua, who as always is trying to prove the usual pov. Again with the usual snippet abuse he removed [1](which presented the obvious ethnic groups that you would expect to exist in an area divided between three different geographic regions) with the usual snippets[2](apparently according to Greek writers there were no Bulgarians in parts of Kastoria and Florina in 1908 and the Aromanians are just 25,000, while at the same time Greeks dominate the whole region).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a snippet abuse, I have complete access on this. Zjarri., admitted that he has too.Alexikoua (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Something else, in 1908 Kastoria & Florina was part of the Monastir Vilayet. Additionally Greeks dominate an area that's today ca. Greece, as described and sourced in the article. Alexikoua (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The kazas of Florina and Kastoria are part of the Manastir vilayet not the whole of their areas.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Challenge of your block of S. V. Taylor

I'm unconvinced that your block was necessary: see my remark here. AGK [•] 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jsqqq777

A character you blocked a year ago is back warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jsqqq777.--Galassi (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I guess it wasn't yet quite up to the level of a renewed block, but I've refreshed the "Digwuren" warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Hey_Ram.jpg

Hello, please let me know if the issue is corrected now. The pictures involves two pro's and is uploaded to how their association for the movie Hey Ram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imemadhu (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid not really. You say it's a "famous face-off". That may well be true (I wouldn't know, I have absolutely no idea about Indian cinema), but the article isn't saying anything about it. In order to support non-free images from a movie, you first need sourced analytical commentary, which is in need of the image to be understood. So, you'd have to add something like a "critical reception" section to the article, which would deal with how cinema critics analysed and evaluated the movie, and somewhere in there you'd need to cite a reliable source speaking about what was so particularly memorable or important about this particular scene. Then it would indeed make sense to illustrate it with that screenshot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Vasil Laçi 3.jpg

See again plz your concern about File:Vasil Laçi 3.jpg, it is a serie of photos took that time and it is important to stay together! --Vinie007 05:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid no. The series is of course historically interesting, but please see WP:NFC#3, "minimality of use". A single image is sufficient to show what he looked like. We cannot use more than are strictly necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Mumbai Metro Renderer.jpg

Hi there, can u help me with this file copyright. I mean can you updated its fair use tag there? KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't. I gave an argument why the file shouldn't be used at all. The problem is not some formality about the tag, it's the use of the file itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well I have added my reason, if you think its publicly available, as you given link of blog, but govt of maha, never show cased it/or never made it public, so until it does so, we can use this image. KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can make a convincing case that the actual colour design (the livery) of the train is in urgent need to be illustrated. So far, I'm not seeing anything in the surroundings of the image in the article that looks like sourced discussion of the livery. Apart from the livery, you could just use a picture of a train of the same type in operation in some other city. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Its specially designed for Mumbai by China, its only of kind, other wise I could have added same as I did in Mumbai Monorail which is designed by Scomi Rail. Again once it made public by govt, I will surely make available at least one image from my friends of skyscrapercity.com till time, I think it will be great to use this image. KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Question re current ANI thread on Khaled Mohamed Saeed image

Hi, Future Perfect. I want to be cautious here: I don't mean to be officious or interfering, and I understand that you must necessarily be far more aware of all the issues that surround this controversy than I am. But it's my impression from reading between the lines that at least some who want the image in the article might be able to hold their noses and go with the idea of a prominent external link... As you know, I don't want to see the pic itself in the article, either. If nothing else, it seems to me that we should exercise some degree of respect for the subject's loved ones, who will no-doubt see our article at some point. But having had some exposure to what bodies look like after an autopsy, it just doesn't seem credible to me that the subject's appearance can be attributed to that cause, either: I feel the article would be truncated or incomplete without recourse to the photo, in other words, especially since it has strongly influenced current events in Egypt. ( See here, for example. ) So, with the greatest possible respect - I've admired your contributions and judgment on other matters, although we've never interacted before, that I recall - I wonder if you, also, might be able to live with a prominent external link? I didn't want to ask you at ANI because, being so "public" a forum, I felt that might put you on the spot, a bit. But could you, do you think, tolerate such a compromise at all, assuming people on the other side of the issue could also do so? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no need for apologies :-) – I haven't yet made up my mind completely about the new discussion. I think I'll answer you a bit later if you don't mind. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your gracious reply. No need to respond further here, unless you just want to, of course. Mostly I just wanted to communicate my surmise (and that's all it is; I have no inside information) that the opposing side might be able to accept this, if you and other like-minded editors could live with it too. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Patnaganges.jpg

Although I have removed the code from the article Patna, but this image is owned by me. May I know who is using it? Boolyme ^Talk!! 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I found it on the web here. That's a smaller version, but clearly from the same photograph, and one that appears to have been published since at least 2007. Your version is evidently a scan from a printed source, which of course I cannot identify. In order to make your authorship claim plausible, I'd need at to know at least the where and how this image was previously published. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My pic is not a scanned copy. It is my picture. The pic that the link showed is also mine. I am a native of Patna and have been actively involved in a variety of such ventures helping the Government of Bihar. This pic was also used in Patna Education Expo material some time back. Though I am not sure whether it made its way to the web or not. I am 26 years old now and have been clicking since last 7-8 years. Also, the pic and many similar pics were in my picasa web album which I have deleted now because of memory constraints. I have begun doubting the policies of Wikipedia now. It is no longer a free editing project which made it so popular. It has become plagued with Administrative and Bureaucratic hassles. No wonder, it has lost so many editors recently. Read this- [[3]]. This is a very important issue. Take this criticism in a positive way and don't ban me as my IP is used by many others (I live in an college campus). I might continue editing but many others who may have devoted so much time only to become engaged in editing wars will feel helpless. Thanks. Boolyme ^Talk!! 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I am quitting wikipedia as I don't feel the need to waste my time trying to convince unknown people. I will focus my energy somewhere else. Wish you luck as an "administrator" ;) ,,|, Boolyme ^Talk!! 19:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, I was about to write out a rather reconcilatory reply here offering to undelete this file on an assumption of good faith, but your last edit [4] somehow tells me it's not that much use, is it? By the way, what set my reaction off was the fact that you had also declared this as your "own work" in much the same words as the other. I suppose if you are 26 now, you didn't work as a designer of postage stamps for the Indian postal service back in 1991, did you? I'm honestly sorry if you feel this is all just bureaucratic hassle, but unfortunately the sheer volume of objectively bad image uploads is still so great we have to be permanently on our guard. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this. But I really fail to understand your intelligence. This image is a postal stamp still in use in India. Issued by the Govt. of India. Did I say I made that stamp in my backyard printing press? The pic of the "stamp" was taken by me. I know the IP laws in India. Taking picture and posting them of Indian stamps don't need prior approval from the Government of India. If you don't know the IP laws in India then you don't have to evolve your your assumptions. As far as the policies of Wikipedia and the so-called "Self-appointed moral guardians" are concerned, read the reader's comments here- [[5]]. Might help Wikipedia in the long run. P.S. "Self-appointed moral guardians" is in inverted commas. Reference is the user comments in the linked BBC article. BTW, I don't know if to say sorry for " ,,|, " or not. But, I am human and have emotions. Ok. Sorry. I have said it now. Boolyme ^Talk!! 19:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Boolyme; I hope you won't mind if I weigh in, also? ( I'm acting as a "talk page stalker" in doing so, a time-honored convention on Wikipedia. ) I just wanted to say that I understand your frustration entirely: There is more bureaucratic overhead involved in getting a photo onto Wikipedia than is desirable. I completely agree the process is daunting, especially the first few times someone attempts to contribute that way. Unfortunately, it's also impossible for us to dispense with that process: Since Wikipedia's content is freely-copyable by other sites, we need to take scrupulous care that everything it includes is also freely copyable. It's a big headache for all concerned, for would-be contributors, for copyright holders, and for volunteers like Future Perfect who try to ensure that copyrights aren't violated. If you knew what a tremendous volume of images and other copyrighted content is attempted to be included every day, I think you might go just a little easier on the folks who try to keep everything cricket. It's a monumental task, and people do make mistakes from time to time, of course. But I hope you don't give up on Wikipedia, though. Despite the necessary bother with matters like this, it really is gratifying to be able to contribute to so extraordinary an enterprise. Also, as much as I do understand your frustration, and commiserate with you, you might like to moderate the tone you're allowing yourself here. Once you've cooled down a bit, I think you'll understand that we're all just doing what we have to, to try to keep all the wheels turning here. Thanks for your contributions, and best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Go Ichinose

You had no right to delete a page which HAD to be started. It was the real Go Ichinose, I had links, I was even preparing for more links so thanks a lot for ruining it. Next time be patient.

It contained no assertion of notability. See WP:CSD A7. Its first sentence was that he was "known only" for work on pokemon. A composer who hasn't written anything beyond some background music for a commercial product like that is hardly notable as a composer. There were no sources either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:La Concha Motel lobby.jpg

Your deletion tag for this image looks completely justified to me. I'd uploaded the higher resolution image to improve an article that used it, and then belatedly realized that it is a pretty blatant copyright violation. I was about to tag the image myself. So thanks for your quicker work! Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Polemical findings and appropriate detachment

Hi FPaS,

Thank you for your advice on the wording of the finding. Since you appear to know what you're doing here—which I certainly can't claim—I'm happy to be guided by you in this. I have (an edit-conflict actually, I thought it too “cutesy” on my own reflection) attempted to recast the finding to be more appropriately detached, but I am considerably uncertain as to the proper “tone” for this context. If you have further advice or suggestions that might better let me contribute to the process I would be most grateful for it. Oh, and if making this request on your user talk page, rather than on the case page, is inappropriate, please do let me know. I am concerned about the amount of discussion—the sheer volume of text—on the case pages and am attempting to limit my own contribution to that tendency. --Xover (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the advice useful. You know, I personally am the very model of a modern Arbcom contestant, so it is generally a very good idea to follow my lead. When I myself am involved in Arbcom cases, I usually go around explaining to arbitrators and clerks how they are all stupid illiterate ne'er-do-wells. I can tell you it improves one's standing with Arbcom immediately. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, given my mental image of that den of thieves, one surely should not leave them room to think for themselves, lest they should be given the impression that they have some sort of mandate to do ought but clerical work around the dusty recesses of some largely irrelevant and outmoded bureaucratic ruleset. Far better to elucidate what they should be thinking in sufficient detail. ;D --Xover (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

POV practice in AM

As an administrator I ask for ur attention to the above article. User Athenean and , now, A Macedonian, are not working within the good faith template of wikipedia. Specifically, they remove parts which do not meet their POV, despite it being from a RS and neutrally written. They make dishonest claims of synthesis' and breaching consensus, when the only concensus which has been made is that in their own minds. In particular, the summarizing sentence by Borza seems to be utterly unacceptable to Athenean. A Macedonian, now makes false statements of alleged 'concensus' and changes a direct reference from Anson, essentially ,misrpresenting the source Hxseek (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please keep in mind that I can't act as an admin here – too much of a long-term involvement in the topic debate. I'm afraid I'll only be able to re-engage substantial debate on that article once I've had an opportunity of reading the new literature you and others have cited. If you feel the other editors' actions become disruptive and need admin intervention, the appropriate channel would be WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The usual WP:CIRCUS once again FutureP.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Smilie + Wand.gif File:Angry1.gif – Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why scope is important

You asked why scope is important. We thought that having the RFC discuss and come to agreement on relative roles would be a useful technique for reigning in a rouge operative. That,as well as developing system where users and WikiProjects can opt out of receiving promotional communications from WPUS and having group discussion of WPUS communications rather than having it be a one-man show. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You win

Alright i'll stop. --Hoppybunny (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dalmatian language

Hello, Fut.Perf. I would like to ask for your attention to the article on the Dalmatian language. An anonymous IP keeps introducing claims about the survival of the language untill the contemporary period without providing any references for them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your participation in Olive's appeal at AE

(Posted verbatim to the talk page of Cirt, to whom this message also applies)

It has been stated in the Olive appeal thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that you are not an uninvolved administrator, despite having opined on the appeal as though you are one. I would ask that you confirm now whether you consider yourself to be a neutral administrator vis-à-vis both Olive and Transcendental Meditation. If you are not, why did you not recuse from administrator activity at the thread? AGK [•] 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies; having re-read the comment (which itself was a little confusing) that led to me posting these questions, I now understand that it has only been contested that Cirt is an involved editor. AGK [•] 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No problems about the misunderstanding. Just for the record, yes, I am uninvolved; the only involvement I've had was itself in an administrative function, in imposing one of the earlier sanctions on Olive and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem child

I believe this fellow needs his block extended. He's just responded to his current block in a rather uncivil tone. Some folk never learn. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Palestine Papers article

I asked users that have edited it to please discuss or contribute to the article. One of them that I asked on his talk page ignored it and proceeded to add a CAMERA source to the article predating the very leak and contents of the article in an attempt to vandalize with POV. He then buried it with some 7 other edits. Another user then tried to add to the title that the papers are questionable. When trying to undo such damage another wikiuser then started an argument with me on the basis of the semantics of the problem I was trying to fix.

I am only one user who doesn't have much time in maintaining or writing. I do this on a very limited basis but I try to collaborate with others in the talkpage. It is frustrating when such hit and run edits happen. So I ask if you have any spare time from your busy day, if you could help with the further creation, citing, and protecting the page from pov and hit and run editors. As well as help collaborate with others on the talkpage to create a better format for the article. I have a few ideas but I do not wish to make any changes without a form of consensus. If you can't, could you ask another wikiuser who has spare time to help? Thanks for your time. --General Choomin (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Athens Montage 2.jpg

Hi! I recently created this new photomontage (File:Athens Montage 2.jpg) of pictures of Athens which is similar but much better than the previous one (File:Athens montage.jpg). As you had advised me then, I cited the already existing pictures that I used from Wikipedia and released the rest, which I created, into the public domain. But there seems to be some problem with 'missing source information'. I can't understand where the problem is. Dimboukas (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see a problem either, except that to be quite correct with the attribution, it would be better to explicitly name the authors of the three source images too. Maybe the other user also was confused because there is no link to the other three images that you created yourself. Perhaps you could upload those three separately too? They are good images and would be nice to have in standalone form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

Would you kindly give your advice here [6]

Hxseek (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Albania

Should Albania (Balkans) started by Antidiskriminator be deleted?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct link?

Hi FP, please take a look here, which one is correct? A Macedonian (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A Macedonian (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Stanovc again

Gjeravica (talk · contribs) is one more sock of Stanovc (talk · contribs). Just to let you know. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

IP block

To be fair to the anon IP I've been just as much involved in that edit war as he/she has and my edits may also warrant a block, although in my defence I would mention that I'm just about the only person trying to improve Hanged, drawn and quartered by actually doing some research on the subject. Parrot of Doom 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I might also add that another editor has recently re-added one of the contentious links in this article (the inclusion of which I fought for, but lost), but I've reverted that edit and informed him about the discussion, on his talk page. That reversion may well take me past WP:3RR, I haven't counted. Parrot of Doom 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

senthil.jpg

possible copyright violation. Boolyme ^Chat!! 21:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Hey — Just to let you know that our friend at List of people born in Ukraine is back... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes afcourse --Vinie007 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It was from flickr but lost link --Vinie007 14:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As far i know they are deleted all--Vinie007 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats to long ago, I simply don't no, I advise you to change in a Non-free use rationaly, than we are sure we don't have any wrong used file --Vinie007 12:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I go about my own awnsers, if you keep this tone plz don't message me any more --Vinie007 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians

Yeah, I know, everybody blocks everything. :P However, I don't block punitively; I politely asked the editor to step back, and they have done so. There's no sense in throwing around blocks when civil discourse is better. If disruption resumes, then I'll block. As for the dispute, I'll let the editors see if a compromise is OK; if consensus is against, we'll have to wait for more sources. Thanks for weighing in, though! It's always nice to work together toward a solution. Cheers, m.o.p 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dialogue

Now that there is some constructive discussion going on, maybe u can help us determine if we should go for a 'long' or 'short' language section [7]

Hxseek (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Police

The state police flag isn't copyrightable according to the Copyright law of Albania, while the source is asp.gov.al.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that one is okay now, thanks. If you want to help, it might be good if you had a quiet word with Vinie, because the way they are going now they are steering towards an indef-block for repeated copyvio problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw Mic Sokoli.jpg should be immediately deleted.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article

I'm not sure if you have the access to do so, but could you please take a look at the log for Anti-Macedonian sentiment and possibly paste the content on my talk page? I'm quite curious. Thanks in advance! --ДакиТ (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't oblige, for several reasons. First, I'm not supposed to take admin action in Macedonian topics (old backstory), so you'd have to ask somebody else. Second, it was a very poorly written article and I myself proposed it for deletion back at the time (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Slav-Macedonian sentiment). Third, I happen to be rather strongly opposed to the whole idea of such articles existing – it's not just that this particular specimen was bad; almost all of them are bad. Please note that WP:CSD states that deleted material that gets re-posted in main article space is subject to immediate re-deletion. While it would be legitimate in principle if some other admin decided to "userfy" the page for you temporarily, my own personal recommendation would be to just not bother. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem and thank you for your time. I'd still like to briefly view the article (my curiosity stems from the same reasons it was deleted). If you have no objections, can you please direct me to an admin you know who could help me. Thank you again. --ДакиТ (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Elm picture

Thanks for you help, much appreciated. Melburnian (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikiquette alerts

Anyway, if he is who I think he is, I can only recommend, very strongly, to both parties to drop it and walk their separate ways.

I've dropped it, but he's still going and going and going on WP:ANI,[8] asking the same questions I've already given him answers to, and pretending they were never answered. Not to mention the fact that he's portrayed me as a knife-wielding killer, should I respond or ignore his personal attacks? I would prefer to ignore them as a) I've already responded to his false allegations, and b) he's obviously trying to bait an angry response. Admin DragonflySixtyseven warned Jack about his incivility in November 2010:

You're dancing very close to the line of incivility. I strongly suggest you make an effort to be more polite.[9] [...] Excessive snarkiness, condescension towards new editors, passive-aggressive statements... if you have a problem with someone, report them. You're getting very close to the line of being a problem yourself. Remember: Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Everyone has to bear both those aspects in mind: not just 'encyclopedia', but also 'collaborative'.[10]

Since that warning in November of last year, Jack hasn't stopped with the incivility or the personal attacks, and the diffs are stacked high. At what point does it end? Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Future, JS has been in conflict with multiple editors concerning multiple articles under his new account. At one point, because of a conflict with Slatersteven, he agreed to not interact for one week with that editor (alluded to here. In addition, he's been in conflict with me, with User:Paul Barlow, User:Node ue, and others in separate situations. I have no idea what his previous account was, or the precise nature of his previous dispute with Viriditas (which he denies having). But it seems to me, based on what I know, that Viriditas is being unfairly singled out. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand the situation fairly well. If J.S. is who I think he is, then yes, he can be extremely difficult to deal with, and I think he will bear me no grudge if I say he can be a pain in the ass. He can also be a very valuable contributor, in between. In the particular conflict V. interfered with him, V. was most probably right and J.S. was wrong. Still, V. yanked his chains, and he ought to have known how susceptible J.S. was to that sort of chain-yanking, and what would happen if he of all people yanked them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Then that would underline my concerns about Clean Start wiping clean this editor's past contributions and disciplinary history, if any. If he has a disciplinary situation in the past, and is repeating his conduct, that is an explicit violation of that policy. "Clean start is not a means to resume similar conduct while concealing a past track record." And note the nutshell comment: "Clean start does not mean the two accounts will not be connected, and a user who uses clean start to resume old habits of editing may well be identified as such and seen as trying to evade scrutiny." Yet we have a Catch-22 situation here: how do we know that Clean Start has been violated? It seems to me that if your assumption is correct, then Clean Start has been violated. However, no other editor can raise the issue administratively as we just don't know who he is. That leads me to conclude that perhaps there is a gaming of Cleanstart going on here, and/or a violation of it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think any rule has been violated in the sense that there would be a need to disclose the connection or force a return to the old name. For now, this whole conflict is a self-perpetuating storm in a teacup, only fuelled by people continuing to talk about it. It will go away as soon as people simply stop. If J.S. creates any more problems in the future they can be dealt with in the normal way. There is certainly no need to hash it all out yet another time on this talkpage, as if it hadn't been all over enough other pages already. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet

You're the admin who blocked a sock puppet of the same person so I thought I'd bring this to you. I think 98.250.42.90 is a sock puppet of the user KarlKraft. Thanks for your help. --SCochran4 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png

Hi, I only just noticed that this image had been deleted as its subsequent deleted talk page showed up on my watch list. This image has had a more thorough review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 19 after which the decision was to keep, or rather, because the image had already been deleted the decision was to overturn and the image was then restored. So I want to make sure you understand that this image has more of a discussion history than the short current discussion that led to the current delete. - Steve3849^talk 16:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

True. I was aware of it. But a second FfD can override a first, and also override an earlier DRV. The recent deletion was on the basis of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 31, which, while not attended by a large number of voters, was a perfectly regular deletion process and ended in consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The rationale of the second discussion was attended in the first discussion; no new rationale was submitted. - Steve3849^talk 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It often happens that similar arguments get exchanged in subsequent XfD's but end up weighted differently. In any case, I don't see anything in the older discussions that conclusively refutes the argument brought forward this time: the image "is not helpful for the understanding of the article". Indeed, it isn't. Normally we allow non-free portraits of deceased people (from before their death, obviously) because they show the readers what the person looked like. This image doesn't: the distortions of death, and the angle from which the image was taken, mean that it gives me not the slightest idea of what he looked like in life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The image was placed in the section "death" and was never placed as a representation of his life. His death has historical significance. - Steve3849^talk 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but about his death it conveys no concrete information either. It is a widespread misconception that the value of an image is measured by the significance of the event it represents. The question is not how significant the event was, but how much the image tells me about the event that couldn't be conveyed otherwise. This one doesn't tell us anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User Kavs8

Hi, would you take a look at the uploads of images by Kavs8 (talk · contribs) please. Two images related to the Flight Avia Flight 7100 article were deleted earlier today - File:Manx2cork.jpg and File:Manx2corkb.jpg. Kavs8 claimed to have released them onto the public domain, but they clearly weren't his photos to do. Now we have File:Manx2corkc.jpg on the article. Clearly taken from a newspaper's website. As I explained to this editor, there may be justification for the use of an image under NFFU rules, subject to the necessary NFUR for each such use. Looking at this editors talk page history, it would seem that there is a history of uploading copyvio images. I will give a lvl 3 warning after I've posted here. It may be that we need to formally topic ban this editor from uploading images until such time that they demonstrate an understanding of what images are useable and what are not. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've already deleted the photo. I've warned the editor not to upload any further copyright photos without appropriate disclosure of their status or NFUR. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. His earlier uploads appear to be okay, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say those that are still up probably are. However, a check of his talk page history reveals previous violations, hence the warning I left. No need for further action here unless there are further violations. I think I've made it clear enough to him now. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I quite forgot this was a guy I myself indef-blocked half a year ago. Well, well, well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that he promised to respect copyright in future. One more upload and it's an indef again I think. Mjroots (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As he's had 2 blocks, I've told him that it's another indef should he repeat the offence. Some people learn from their mistakes, whilst others fail to. This may be a case of the latter. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Insurgency_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia#Slav_extremists

Hi! Could you take a look at this article? There were a few reverts, and the ip editor is not willing to engage in the discussion. Imho semi-protection would help. Best regards, Alæxis_¿question? 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that guy again. Unfortunately I am barred from taking admin action here. Can you ask somebody else please? I quite agree the IP editor needs to be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of image Daniel_de_jongh.jpg

I have permission for using the image in a low resolution format by the photographer himself. Please do not delete the image.

Thanks for the response. I have the log of an e-mail conversation with the photographer, can I send that to permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org? thanks. Kartikdhar (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've sent an e-mail to the permissions address with the e-mail transcript and also requested the photographers to send an e-mail as well. Please don't delete the pictures. Thanks. Kartikdhar (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

another review of user images

A user which commented on his page, uploaded quite a number of images claiming they were his own work which I find dubious. Later, he removed disputed copyright tags from the images. When the situation is figured out finally, they may come into play. The user's contribs.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

True. They are all military emblems and rank insignia, right? And it seems somebody re-tagged them all as non-free and added rationales. I would assume good faith here – these thingies are sufficiently borderline, somewhere in between not-copyrightable-because-too-simple, public-domain-because-official-symbol, derivative work, obvious fair use, and all those other confusing concepts, that I wouldn't blame a contributor if they mistagged them. I think we generally allow include kinds of sets of insignia for various national armed forces, don't we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just noting that he claimed they were his own which is what Ehsan was doing and Ehsan said that was to prevent them from being deleted.

I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran#Public domain photos which lists some public domain sources. I'm not sure if the fact that this list exists means that others aren't in the public domain or not. Someone on the talkpage of that project might be able to shed some light. I've been looking online and haven't found anything in English (I don't read Persian). Hopefully helpful,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

A little reply.--Lsorin (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Request basis for conclusions

In explaining your recent deletion of a restored image, you wrote that the "image had already been resoundingly rejected by consensus at the article talkpage." As per the talk page discussion, this comment seems a bit exaggerated, IMO. Including the original image tagger, there were three total editors who opposed (mildly, it seems) the image in discussion. There were two, including me, who agreed that "keep" was justified. One middle-of-the-road commenter simply asked, "Are you guys sure that they really hadn't met each other before that moment?" and his question was answered by the source, which no one bothered to read it seems. The admin who deleted the file did so as a matter of course without comment. A "consensus" of 3 to 2 does not seem to support your conclusion of a "resounding rejection by consensus."

In deleting this image you ignored the fact that detailed commentary directly relating to and describing the image had recently been added to the article. That fact was noted on the new image summary information, the article talk page, and the talk page of the admin who deleted the image. All of those reasons make it hard to understand your rationale for speedily deleting the image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In NFC-related deletion discussion, strength of arguments is what counts. None of the arguments for keep address the NFC issue. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether Zuckerberg and the actor had previously met. It doesn't matter in the slightest how much the article says about what happened in that show. The only thing that matters is whether the concrete visual information contained in the image is necessary to understand what the text is saying. Quite obviously, it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comment that "None of the arguments for keep address the NFC issue" is unclear as they were addressed. The essential significance of the image as required by NFCC is that it was their "first" meeting, which supports the commentary. The fact that the image came from the once-only TV show is likewise a requirement, since the TV screen capture also supports the commentary, and is the whole point of the image. So I honestly don't understand how NFCC requirements can suddenly "not matter," but a POV conclusion of "quite obviously", can override everything else.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You evidently didn't get my point. Please re-read. Especially the second sentence from the last: " The only thing that matters is whether the concrete visual information contained in the image is necessary to understand what the text is saying." Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add the required deletion notices to all the image captions you marked. Thanks!--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Notifications in image captions are optional, and current practice is that most editors do not do them. I honestly don't know if there is currently some wording somewhere on some policy page that says they are obligatory; even if there is, that rule has been annulled by actual practice. There used to be some bot and/or some function in the Twinkle system that did them automatically, and I would be happy if there were such a function again. My personal position is that I refuse to do them as long as they are not automated. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

On the notice posted on the image page it says, "Notify the uploader . . . " followed by "Add following to the image captions . . ." It's logical that without notifying uploaders and watching editors, a picture can simply disappear without prior warning and a chance for anyone to fix any defects, unless there was some earlier discussion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The same question has been asked here, for another image tagged coincidentally on the same day.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Shapiro book cover

Fut. Perf., hold off a day or so before deleting that image. I think it might qualify under Wikipedia:Non-free content. I'll do the required foot work and make sure. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, three things. First, I personally don't really think it qualifies, but then I'm one of those odious extreme NFC deletionists. You run the risk of getting yourself into all sorts of extra trouble with me nominating it for deletion again and all that jazz (I'm worse than Bishzilla when it comes to stomping fair-use images.). The way we usually interpret the NFC principles for this type of case is that a cover can only be used if the book is itself notable and an object of significant encyclopedic coverage. Certainly not when it's just a source being used in the article. So you'd need some rather exceptional justification here. Second thing, I can't currently delete it, because it's on Commons, where I'm not an admin (but somebody else will). Third thing, if you wish to give it a try and keep it under NFC, it can't stay on Commons either, because Commons is only for free media. You'd have to re-upload it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about it or take any time defending it, but it does seem to me to qualify. As a hypothetical defence, it is indeed "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question", and I would think that requiring it to have "significant encyclopedic coverage" would be an over-interpretation of policy. (I mean, please, Goldfinger Comic or 40 Days with God qualify but this book doesn't?) It is indeed a notable book in the field, although it certainly doesn't deserve its own article, that field being quite demonstratively fringe. Also it meets the four tests for fair use under U.S. copyright law.

But as I wrote above, I don't want to spend any time on it, since we've already IMO spent too much time on this article (though it's hardly our fault, I think!). Cheers Fut. Perf. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

your comment on my page

More: I just deleted File:XChromos Tower.jpg as an obvious copyright violation from [11]. You falsely declared this image to be your own work, and apparently you did the same with a number of images that were later transferred to Commons too. Please go through all the images in your upload log and your log on Commons that still show up as blue links, and if there are any others that you falsely described as your own work or otherwise freely licensed, please list them here on this page. I'm giving you 24 hours; if I should find any others at a later date that you didn't list here, you will be blocked indefinitely with no further warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I' post some of my images to the forums allowing to be used by others, all images in wiki commons i've uploaded are either mine or already belonged to wiki other language sites i only moved them to English wiki site. And do not jump and accuse people, very rude Mic of orion (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Logging

I added your ARBPS notifications to the log (yes, there was some confusion back in the heady days of yore when the present system was still being developed, resulting in the log being recorded at a different case). I am quite clearly WP:INVOLVED here, so you should fix the log if it was not your intention to give formal notice to those three editors under the provisions of that case. And thanks for stepping in. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks, I hadn't noticed that "notifications" section already existed on the other case page. It sure is a confusing set-up. Yes, I did mean these to be "official" notifications. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg keeps trying

See my comment here. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and fringe

Please, I used to work at the department of Neuroscience at Brown University. Opinions there when asked about the many web postings vs the official government line that aspartame is safe mostly questioned the funding that advanced the view that aspartame is safe. There are many medical research articles claiming aspartame is dangerous. I can provide them. This is not pseudoscience this is not Fringe. It is a minority belief. It should be covered as such. Yes the majority belief says aspartame is safe but there is a minority that believes it is dangerous.Arydberg (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that it's a minority view, in fact an extreme minority view held only by a small handfull (less than "five" fingers?) of doctors and scientists, most of whom are retired and self-publishing their own weird POV, some of which are also pseudoscientific, fringe and even illegal quackery. (You see, people who are odd enough to hold one fringe view often hold many other fringe, pseudoscientific and quackish views, and they often cross the line into what is actually illegal.)

There is no controversy in scientific circles at present, with the lone exception of Soffritti, whose self-published work at his own Ramazzini Institute has been severely criticized. No, the real controversy died out a long time ago. All of the activism and publicity that exists is internet activism fueled by Betty Martini and a couple retired doctors, and their thousands of lay syncophants and SPAs who edit here. It has basically created a situation extremely similar to Delusional parasitosis ("aspartame disease"), where the effect of Martini's activism through the internet is similar to this: Morgellons#Role of the Internet. In fact, that section might serve as a model to use here, but in a modified form. That's what's happening in the real world.

Since the article never mentions any of these descriptions (pseudoscience, fringe, minority), this thread is a straw man, but maybe we could still describe it as a minority view. The problem with doing that is that it gives undue weight and legitimacy to it. A "significant" scientific minority view would indeed be worth noticing, but when the scientific "minority" is literally "infinitisimal", it's not significant enough to be worth wasting the bytes, or is it? I'd like to hear what Future Perfect thinks. To be accurate, we would have to qualify "minority" by mentioning exactly how few ("a small minority of 4-5 (mostly retired) doctors and scientists"). That would be a pain, because it would mean we'd have to then give them undue weight compared to the enormous silence in the literature. WP:FRINGE then comes into the picture for how to deal with such minority views.

Arydberg, are you really "A. Rydberg" (your real name is plastered all over the internet, but I'm not interested in outing you), or are you Christine Lydon, MD, or have you worked with her at Brown U.? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gjorgji Pulevski

Hello. I found out here that you have made an analysis of the usages of the names "Georgi Pulevski" and "Gjorgji Pulevski" on Google Books. However, today it is not like that, since Gjorgji Pulevski is more used on Google Books and Google in general. Should we think of renaming the article? Also, you might be interested in this useless and stupid discussion here since I quoted you, which I think you do not mind. This is just informational, best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Tone

Hi FP, there's no call to respond that I'm asking a "silly" question when I ask about the relationship between the image policies and the unwritten understanding that all our policies be applied with common sense. I don't recall you finding me silly when I was spending my time to help you with Deucalionite, so I'd be grateful if you'd spend a little time trying to see my perspective now that it's me who has the problem. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but respectful disagreement would be appreciated, rather than dismissing me as though I'm a halfwit. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding passive aggressiveness to you rhetorical strategy doesn't improve your position either. It was a leading question, and it was a silly trick to employ it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

Regarding your comment here, and in light of my following reply here, could you clarify whether you were merely stating your opinion or whether you were explaining policy as you understand it? As I write in my reply I'm disposed to assume you know this a whole heck of a lot better than I do—and I would certainly not mind getting out of digging up details or new versions of all those images—but your comment did not make clear whether you were opining on what ought be sufficient or on what you know will have been sufficient when we get to FAC. --Xover (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I am far more familiar with image standards from the perspective of deletion processes than from the perspective of FAC discussions – standards quite probably are higher in the latter, so maybe it was a bit rash of me to dismiss the need for more careful sourcing. "Best practice" would probably mean having both types, and if you want to be on the safe side it might be worth going the extra mile, but honestly I'm not sure how they tend to handle that at FAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we'll fix what we can without too much effort, and then try to find someone that does image reviews at FAC to ask for advice. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

I was wondering about the warning you gave me. I haven't edited on the aspartame controversy talk page in almost two weeks. The last comment that I made said that if a phrase was not in a reference then it should not be in the article with that reference used to support that phrase. How is this pushing a fringe POV? And why this warning now after not posting for so long? Jmpunit (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The warning was not directed to any one particular posting, but to a long term pattern of editing. It came to my attention through a recent report at ANI which dealt with the overall activity by several editors on that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider this a very serious matter. Please be specific in your accusations. Jmpunit (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

MoreThings can probably be unblocked

I think 48 hours was probably excessive given that he said in his last edit that he was going to let it drop. "You've asked me to drop this, and I will."[12] Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see this is moot! I've been busy the last couple of days. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A little help

I am unexperienced in license issues regarding commons, but I have created this from this. I intend to use it as a layout for different periods of Albanian history. Am I right with license tags? If not please help. Regards Aigest (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ada Hotel

You had deleted the page about Ada Hotel as advertisment. But it is not as it is just a description of a hotel, like Kempinski Palace Hotel (Portorož) or any other. Brief description without commercial details. Just to help people to see more information about the hotel. The page is done in a proper form using hotel info icon, logo, etc. I think this page has the right to be on Wikipedia. Natalia Spatar (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

First, phrases like "famous by its A-plus quality summer visitors", "hosts celebrities as its precious guests", "tastefully outfitted", and "beautiful hamam and elegant library" are clearly promotional in nature (see WP:PEACOCK). Second, a hotel, like any other business, only becomes notable if it is the object of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The only thing the article had was a single mention in a travel review. Third, whether this hotel is notable is a decision you should leave to people who do not, like you, have a conflict of interest, since you apparently work for a closely connected company. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if I delete emphasizing ajectives as "famous" or "beautiful", though everything is true, can it be acceptable? Also this hotel is a member of Relais & Chateaux, and I could include other referenses from the media. This page is just a brief information about the hotel, nothing commercial. How can I improve this page? Natalia Spatar (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you take a look at a few of the debates listed here [13] to get an idea what the implicit expectations about notability are for such pages. Then make a list of independent (non-promotional) sources giving it substantial coverage. I also recommend you should submit this to a disinterested audience to decide, for instance by filing a deletion review. I personally am currently unconvinced of the merits of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I think it would also be helpful, before you continue arguing about the page, if you could clarify up front what your own interest is here. You said at Talk:Le Pietre (yacht) that you worked for a company related to that yacht, by which I suppose you referred to those "Ada Yacht Shipyards". So, is the ownership of the "Ada Hotel" related to your company and are you being paid for promoting it? Please do read the WP:COI page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My interest here is quite clear. I wrote about the yacht as it is a nice vessel, and it can be listed here as any other yacht. Ada Hotel was not featured in Wikipedia before either, but ok, if you say that it is not interesting, what can I do. In this case articles about yachts and properties shouldn't exist here at all? I saw the pages about companies and their businesses on Wiki, so I thought these two nice objects can be listed here as well. Natalia Spatar (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification

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. Jmpunit (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wake up..

.. and smell the coffee.[14] Bishonen | talk 06:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Ah, coffee! Coffee! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Haftvad

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note about a discussion regarding you

User:Smatprt has asked a question, and I have posted a response, which relates to you: User talk:AGK#Some questions regarding ArbCom and my topic ban. As a courtesy to you, I am notifying you of that discussion. You are of course welcome to participate there if you wish. Regards, AGK [•] 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Arvanites

Off course not. I was going to remove Dodona's comment, pressed the rollback button but I didn't notice the last sec. you already took action. I reverted myself anyway.Alexikoua (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Grouse Mountain Turbine Images

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise,

These images belong to Grouse Mountain Resort who I have contacted and been given permission to use these images as long as they are given credit. All these images do is add validity to the edit I do not understand why you will not let them remain on the page. Please let me know what is needed in order to do so because the owners have no issue with this. Joe Fielder (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Dear Fut.Perf. ☼,

I am currently new to Wikipedia contribution, and I would like some assistance on how to upload a right copyrighted image. Instead of telling me, and deleting my pictures, I would like to ask help (small tutorial?) on how to upload an image properly. I am still learning here at Wikipedia. When I expanded 2 of the articles, I added images so people who see the page get understanding of the article.

Regards Gleb

9:28 AM, 25 February 2011 (GMT)

Well, if you are talking about photographs that are owned by somebody else, the only advice I can give you about how to upload them correctly is to not upload them at all. The only exception is if you can get the actual owner to release them under a free license, and you can prove they did so. Apart from that case, the only safe advice is to upload only images you personally took with your own camera. WP:Image use policy is probably the most accessible page to read first about our policy. Hope this helps, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

_______________________

Well I can't not upload them. Photos help the articles I edit (e.g picture of an Airport terminal). I had two photos that I owned which you deleted. I think it's because I didn't license them correctly. It's my first time uploading pictures to Wikipedia, so I definitely have problems doing so.

Regards Gleb

10:01 AM, 25 February 2011 (GMT)

Which two images were yours? Of those I checked, several had evidently been published and claimed by other people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

_______________________

Hello Fut.Perf. ☼,

Ilyich-Avia Website is up and working so you can check the airline's logo as the source. I also found couple pictures on the web that I might use on wiki. Can I add them? And If I can, can you help me Licsen them properly?

Thanks you

Regards Gleb

11:08 AM, 25 February 2011 (GMT)

I cannot find the image you uploaded as File:Ilyich-Avia-Airline-Logo.jpg on that website anywhere. The only thing I can find that looks like a logo is that red stylized "И". I think you also uploaded a version of that at some point, right? If you like, we could restore that one. About other images you found somewhere "on the web", I think I explained it quite clearly: no, you cannot add those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

________________________

Hello Fut.Perf. ☼,

I gave you the wrong logo link. This is the right link: http://www.ilyich.com.ua/steel/ilyich_aircraft . When I meant Pictures from the web, I meant on their official website.

Thanks you

Regards Gleb

11:46 AM, 25 February 2011 (GMT)

Okay, found the file. But it still seems to me as if the actual logo is just the red thing they use at the top of their pages, and on the livery of the airplanes, don't you think? As for other images, no, if you are thinking of photographs of aircraft, buildings or the like, it doesn't matter where they come from, we can only use free ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

_________________________

Hello Fut.Perf. ☼,

The weird looking letter "N" is not their logo. It's logo of Ilyich Steel & Iron Works. It represents Ukrainian/Russian letter I (as Ilyich). The logo I put out is the only logo I found. I've been to the airport and flew the airline itself. But why can't we use their photos from the web? They are not copyrighted, and they don't hold any copyright status. I wanted to use one of the aircraft picture, so I could add it next to the fleet section. Since it's their website and not a private photographer, in my opinion pictures can be used.

Thanks you

Regards Gleb

12:02 PM, 25 February 2011 (GMT)

Everything is copyrighted, by default, unless somebody has explicitly released it. About the logo, I can see the red "И" is also used by the Steelworks mother company, but it's also the one logo that is actually in use on the aviation daughter's page, and since it's also the one found on the aircraft it seems the obvious itsm about which we can sensibly claim that it's associated with the public image of the company and will serve to "help the reader identify the organization", as the fair-use tag on the image page says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

___________

This Picture also has "N". But it says the name of the airline, and has a little picture of the plane. It is also on the "about page" which talks about the airline. I think that that logo has all the rights to represent company.

Thanks you

Regards Gleb

12:21 PM, Friday (GMT)

Except that it isn't really a logo in the commonly understood sense of the word, and isn't used like one. The "И" alone is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What shall I do?

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise!

Some days ago undesirable developments with editing of an article Ivan Dumbadze forced me to draw a public attention to them at AnI. This call induced the opponent, DonaldDuck to at least publish the grounds of his previously unmotivated edits on the article talk page. However, instead of replying to my reasoned objections to his claims, DondaldDuck explicitly refused to search for a compromise and unilaterally resumed editing, which I consider to be politically biased.

I've already posted warnings:

• on the talk page of DonaldDuck, and
• on the article talk page

I've also prepared a draft of another application to AnI. However, given my minor experience in the local community workspace I am not still sure that the chosen way shall be the best given this particular situation. Thus I kindly ask you to review the following draft («Ultimatum instead of dispute»), and to give an advice on my follow-up actions.

Thanks in advance, Cherurbino (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Ultimatum instead of dispute

On February 21 I informed here about an unappropriate approach of DondaldDuck towards the solution of problems he sees in the article Ivan Dumbadze. This day his first series of 18 subsequent edits were not motivated at all. Having warned him for the second time, in my search of consensus, I proposed DonaldDuck, in particular, to return to the normal way of dispute, i.e. to post his claims on the article talk page and to wait for reply of other participants.

Instead of waiting for these replies, on 15:36, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck came with another 21 series of edits.

Only after third parties warned DonaldDuck that at least such set of diffs (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3) during 24 hours look like WP:EDITWARRING, DonaldDuck finally promised here:

Now I will not make any big changes to the article, without discussing it first at the talk page.

— DonaldDuck, diff 05:43, 22 February 2011

On 11:35, 2011-2-22 DonaldDuck finished posted a list of 8 his objections. I replied each 8 of them.

I also added a general objection to of all the claims of DonaldDuck, having warned him against the WP:NPOV bias as the ground of his objections, all of which are based upon a single memoir book of one Russian emigrant (and its derivatives) while the whole compilation was based upon encyclopedic sources before 1917 and the books of modern American researchers.

Actually DonaldDuck answered only one minor point ("whether the two references shall be considered as the same source") of eight, and another was a repeated insistence upon including of a questionable data, without any new arguments for ot.

Instead of a discussing other points DonaldDuck showed his refusal to search for a compromise in an improperly ultimative manner:

I'm not going to discuss my interpretations of sources, concepts of honor, legality etc. This would be WP:Original research. Just remove edeverything in the article text that is your original work and not supported by sources. Or I will remove it.

— DonaldDuck, diff 20:03, 22 February 2011

In violation of ethics rules, as well as his promise "I will not make any big changes to the article, without discussing it first at the talk page" which he had publicly given at AnI board before, DonaldDuck immediately resumed his POV-attack on the article.

I must separately note, that no warning about it was given by DonaldDuck in the initial topic at ANI where the whole problem was discussed before, and where he gave that promise.

Here I must remind that this is not the first time when DonaldDuck is engaged in WP:EDITWARRING here, that he has been placed on 1RR restriction [15] (which he now violated), engaged in sockpuppetry and twice blocked indefinitely [16]. Whatever elements of WP:GOODFAITH may be found in his present series of edits, I have to draw community's attention to what I consider to be the main driving force for DonaldDuck here.

Most of the edits of DonaldDuck at the article Ivan Dumbadze are aimed at one goal.

Rejecting a comprehensive review of encyclopedic sources and modern American scientists upon the subject of the so-called Black Hundreds and their main supporters in Russia (and such was an article before his interference), DonaldDuck tends to replaced it with unilateral, biased view taken from a memoir written by an emigrant, apart from archive documents. The style of this memoir leaves no doubt about an open sympathy of its author to Black Hundreds and General Dumbadze (a member of the strongest party within this group) in particular.

Among the first deletions of DonaldDuck in the article was the removal on 15:53 2011-2-21 removal of the two following links to the books of modern U. S. scientisis:

• Langer, Jack (2004). James R. Millar (ed.). Black Hundred. Russian History Encyclopedia. Gale.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Klier, John D. (2005). Richard S. Levy (ed.). Black Hundreds. Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution. Vol. 2. ABC-CLIO. p. 71. ISBN 1851094393. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |allpages= ignored (help)Having wiped these references out of the article, on a talk page DonaldDuck posted an unreasonable and unfounded statement that allegedly

"Black hundreds" is derogative term. Such terms should be avoided per WP:NPOV

— DonaldDuck, diff 20:03, 22 February 2011

In his claims DonaldDuck sets his personal political estimates of the sources to the forefront:

was extremely hostile to Dumbadze, because of his party affiliation

— DonaldDuck, diff 05:44, 23 February 2011

"forgetting" that the a critical view upon Dumbadze's activities has been already documented in 1913 in such a reliable encyclopedic source, as «Brockhaus», the Russian counterpart to the 1911 Britannica.

Opposing all these encyclopedic and modern American sources, DonaldDuck imposes the above biased memoirs, a 1908 note from Black-Hundred newspaper and its reprint in NYT of the same time, and the modern derivative publication on a Russian websource "An Orthodox News agency «Russian line»" (Russian: Православное информационное агентство "Русская линия").

I don't consider this approach to conform to the rules of Wikipedia. All points of view, all sources, and all estimates, not excluding marginal and doubtful (I wrote about it on a talkpage) have already been mentioned in the article Ivan Dumbadze before the interference of DonaldDuck which I hence treat as close to destructive.

Thus I am forced to revert all previous edits of DonaldDuck since all of them bypassed the procedure of dispute and search of compromise. Insisting that by the nature of all these edits DonaldDuck imposes his biased WP:NPOV I would have considered it appropriate to block for some time his editing capabilities in these theme in order to allow our participants and me to return this article to a normal, unbiased state. Cherurbino (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I have to reply to this strange accusations. Cherurbino is accusing me of:

• Refusing to discuss edits and search for a compromise, while I discussed all my edits at the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze. Just see this talk page.
• Removing links (Klier and Langer) he himself agreed to remove and himself removed.
• Using source (Ivanov's article at the «Russian line») he himself added to the article and referenced several times [17]
• Making reference to New York Times --DonaldDuck (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see little actionable material in the above complaint. Maybe that's due in part to it being a bit tl;dr and not very clearly structured. I also confess I have a strong prejudice against any editor who has a habit of underlining all references to the opponent he is complaining about with repetitive wikilinks of his user name. I don't know why this is, but experience shows there is an inverse correlation between the number of wikilinked user names and a positive attitude in dispute resolution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry, I know this is serious to you, DonaldDuck, but I just had to say that FPS's analysis of username usage and attitude is hilarious. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying: I mean hilarious in a good, insightful way, btw. I wonder what other "codes" exist that imply a less than collaborative attitude. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I have a strong prejudice against any editor who has a habit of underlining all references to the opponent": thank you for warning about 'prejudices'; it's not a good prerequisite for an objective consideration of any issue.
As for 'underlining' — you see, that's is my own style of writing, nothing more. The template {{u|username}} is the shortest way to show the nick correctly; to avoid typos I simply copy it once and paste each time, where tho or more pronouns „he, him, his” in one sentence may require disambuigation. Cherurbino (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry

sorry, i have calmed down now Dn9ahx (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

re Felix

Bravo on calling out the trolling. His statement of "If someone told you they were thinking about "reporting you to the authorities" because you had an opinion that was "anti-USA" you would see the chilling effect this has." is either a brilliant troll, or betrays a stunning lack of self-awareness. Either way, good job. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nortish language

User:Rogers91, whom you reverted at Germanic languages, has created an article at Nortish language, apparently written in "Nortish". I've tagged it with a speedy-hoax, though another tag may be more appropriate. Is the user actually referring to Pennsylvania German language, or is it total nonsense? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rogers91 has now added more to his user page in "Nortish". I had tagged his talk page with a Template:uw-english warning, but he removed it with more comments in Nortish. From his user page, he appears to be able to speak English. Is this just some sort of troll activity? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[Libyan insurgency images]

like i mentioned...the images r not of any particular organisation

and when libyans upload such videos they are probbly doing that as per "publishing into public domain" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav21391 (talk • contribs)

Well, as I said, I'm afraid we can't just assume that. You are of course very welcome to try and contact one of the uploaders and get them to release their material (if they have access to a youtube account, they should have access to the youtube comments system, although I can imagine they might have other things on their minds right now.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ricardo Rossello.jpg

Your deletion is in violation of policy for multiple reasons. First, do not delete images that you've tagged yourself: it's no more appropriate than it would be to close as "delete" an XFD that you started yourself. Secondly, the uploader did not name a third party as the source/copyright holder. You know very well that policy prohibits speedy deletion except according to the criteria. If you still want this image to be deleted, take it to FFD. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I must correct you on one matter of policy: in speedy deletion matters, processing by a single administrator is perfectly legitimate. The tagging is not a formal deletion process analogous to an XfD, but merely serves to document the waiting period and notification. In the present case, I find the criteria not very clear about the case when a prior external publication was not mentioned by the uploader himself but found and noted by another editor immediately afterwards. Tagging as F11 is then the gentler alternative to an immediate "blatant copyvio" speedy, which would have been legitimate since the uploader's prior history made their authorship claim highly questionable. In any case, the external publication existed, the uploader was informed of it, was asked to make the necessary clarification, and failed to do so. In such a case, I maintain that deletion is legitimate and in fact mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gyros

Hi, FP, there is a merge discussion going on at Talk:Gyros. Your sage input would be very welcome there. You don't need to be an expert on food -- Kwami and I believe this is a pretty straightforward content fork issue, but there are strong feelings on all sides.... --Macrakis (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing letter

Hi, I'm Gheg Albanian from Skopje, and I know that Epsilon is [e] & not [ɛ] it's important that you leave Hêta because Gheg & Tosk variant like Tim / Têm, Jim / Jêm are caused by Greek Hêta [ɛ / i] & Hypje / Hipje (ascent), Ftyrë / Ftirë (face), Krypë & Kripë (salt) by Ypsilon [y / i], Albanian peoples (Gheg / Tosk / Arbanitês) use [o] like in kos (yoghurt), and [ɔ] in Dorë (Hand). All albanian verb are ending with -ÔJ [-ɔj] like Greek verb using -ιζω or -ω. So Greek Ômega is [ɔ] and exist in Shqip.

The other letter are unsourced to ? Do you plane to erase ? I'm asking you to keep what I added please. Gmazdên (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. I'm afraid it's not entirely clear to me what you are talking about. You seem to be talking about phonology and phonological history of Albanian, and saying that there is a phonological contrast between /o/ and /ɔ/ in Albanian, and that some historical (loan word?) relationships between Greek and Albanian are sensitive to the presence of historical "η" in Greek. That may all be fine and true, but it's not what that page is about. The Arvanitic alphabet page is not about etymological relations between Greek etymons and Albanian words, but about a specific system of spelling Albanian in the Greek alphabet, in Greece, and it says it is mainly describing the system used in a specific Albanian edition of the New Testament (I think the author meant the one by Grigor Gjirokastriti, and I seem to remember I once checked the table against that work.) If you believe Gjirokastriti used omega and eta in spelling Albanian, please provide a source; my understanding is that he apparently didn't. I suppose his translation would have been in a form of Tosk anyway, which doesn't apparently have the vowel contrasts you speak of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

emailed: Hi, can you check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanitic_alphabet, I added Hêta & Ômega to Arvanitic alphabet but Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise reversed arguing source, other letter don't have source, so I don't understand, it's important to keep Hêta & Ômega because Gheg & Tosk use those sound. And variant of Gheg & Tosk are caused by Hêta [ɛ] becaming [i] & Ypsilon [y] becaming [i]. Also Epsilon is [e] and [ɛ]... Gmazdên

I’m not an admin here and Albanian is not one of my languages. In order to make any substantial change to an article, you have to be able to show a source, some good evidence that others can check and confirm. The only thing I could find on this was here: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/alphabet/alban-greek-alpha.jpg ... but this source does not support your position. It does not show the eta or the omega. —Stephen (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view Future Perfect, but may be Arbanitês is incomplete. Also you use [ɛ] for Epsilon and in the source prowided by Stephen it's [e]... Still, those letter exist in Greek and for Shqip Greek words. I would like to implore you to keep or to add Ômega & Êta [ɛ→i] to this alphabet. It's a needed for Wiktionary, cause I need Êta & Ômega for variation [ɛ/i] [y/i] of Tosk/Gheg/Arbanitês in Alternative spelling... Has I said before the ending verb use Ômega [ɔ] in Ancient Ellêniqa & Old Latin / Etruscan. So Arbanitês surely use it in language, since Omicron is [o], we (Shqip) need Ômega [ɔ], may be their alphabet is incomplete and I would like to correct and complete.. Please, hope you understand. Don't live in the past by keeping only what Grigor Gjirokastriti said. Everything thing evolve. Are you Arbanitês / Arbëritês ?

If so, or not, I'm searching for ΛΕΞΙΚΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΒΑΝΙΚΗΣ ΓΛΩΣΣΗΣ (1908) of Kostandin Kristoforidhi (in PDF or else). Do you know an English Arbanitês dictionary using Greek Script, I really need this one for ==Alternative Term== in Wiktionary (I would like to add Arbanitês variant using Greek script but using Hêta, Qoppa & Ômega (for ê / i, O/Ô / y/i variante between Tosk & Gheg)... Gmazdên (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not able to access the page, cause you redirected to Albanian Alphabet, the page talk about Arbênitês but doesn't show the letter can you add them or remove the redirection. Please. Gmazdên (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you uploaded the "Albanesisch-Griechisch" table from Faulmann (File:Alban-greek-alpha.jpg). It's interesting indeed. Perhaps, with that, the Meksi New Testament and the Christoforidis dictionary you mentioned, we could in fact turn the Arvanitic alphabet page into something better, say an article to be called Albanian-Greek scripts. Macrakis (talk · contribs) might be able to help, as he is the author of a relevant paper cited at the Albanian alphabet article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

May be it's a good idea, you can call it Albanian-Greek scripts or Arvanitic alphabet, because only Arbanitês use this variant. I don't know what you have in mind, but what I surely know, it's that in Skopje we use e [e] (epsilon) & ê [ɛ] (Êta), o [o] (Omicron) & ô [ɔ] (Ômega), k [k] (Kappa) & k [q] (Qoppa) and Nasal. For me the actual Albanian Latin Alphabet is incomplete and I prefer Bashkimi alphabet (except for GJ, NJ ; about Ç I prefer TSH), but really, some letter must be added like ê [ɛ] (êta), ô [ɔ] (ômage) & q [q] (qoppa), and nasal vowel ã ẽ/ѧ ĩ õ/ѫ ũ ỹ that Gheg/Slavônic use. Gmazdên (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am extremely disappointed by your comment here. What "potentially sensitive, private off-wiki evidence involved" are you talking about? The ones that were obtained by means of hacking my email accounts? Well, at least one member of arbcom has already given his opinion on those "evidences". Besides how those "evidences" that were hacked from my email account could help in appeal by the user, who first was proxy-editing for the hacker and for the banned user (its own admission), and then created a sock to post what it believed to be my private email online? Alison said it all: "What annoys me the most is how cowardly this all was" , and cowardly it was. The only evidences the user could present is the user name of the hacker, who allegedly contacted the user via wikipedia email services (that assuming a good faith that User:Sol Goldstone was not the hacker), but these evidences are not sensitive, and should be presented on wiki. May I please ask you to understand me, I am absolutely not against appeals, I am a strong believer in giving users a second chance, but I am very much disappointed by your suggestions of how to appeal. It will be great, if you re-word it. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Crimson Armada

Hello, today you have deleted the article The Crimson Armada. While I do not know much about the band, I can find sufficient sources for its inclusion. I was not aware that it was up for deletion, or else I would have provided sources. Is there a way that you can reproduce the article if I can provide sources?--3family6 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a WP:CSDA7 speedy deletion, since I couldn't find any substantial assertion of notability in the article, and it was entirely unsourced. But I can of course undelete it for you, if you promise to improve it and add documentation of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will source it. The whole reason I noticed was because the link went red on a list article, and on that article it is sourced. Thanks, --3family6 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it should meet notability guidelines now.--3family6 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eddie1kanobi

The IP that you identified as a sock of [18] Eddie1kanobi is back and is making the same edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Now he's using another IP [19][20]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't take admin action here. Could you get somebody else to deal with it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Rosebud Benitez 3.jpg

I'm very well aware of the situation, and I know that you're an administrator. You placed a notice saying that it was to be deleted because it was sourced to someone other than the uploader, which is patently false in light of the "Own work" statement and the link to the uploader in the Author line. You know that it's inappropriate to continue requesting deletion after three different people all tell you that your tag is incorrect, and you know that there are other methods of having files deleted besides speedy. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are still talking about "requesting" deletion? Get it into your head that I'm not requesting anything. The conditions for speedy are still met, and just because you don't want to act on them, doesn't mean that I can't. You yourself have – correctly – explained to the uploader that she needs to bring OTRS confirmation. There is no need for further discussion beyond that, therefore, PUF or FFD would be a waste of electrons. Either she brings OTRS confirmation, then all is fine, or she doesn't, then deletion will happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

I saw you put some photos I uploaded for delation because of copyright. You can delete them except File:Mohammed es-Senoussi.jpg this image I think we should keep but I wanted to see what you think the others you can delete. Spongie555 (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Need shortcut for Longevity case

The longevity arbcom case needs a shortcut, like WP:ARBMAC, WP:EEML etc. I was delighted to find you had updated Template:Uw-sanctions so we now have 'topic=old' for the longevity case. We also need a shortcut to make it easy to refer to the longevity case in warning messages. How about WP:ARBOLD. Perhaps WP:ARB100 or WP:LONGEVITY would be better? EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to invent one :-) I'd say it should have the "ARB" prefix like the others. "WP:LONGEVITY" might be better suited as a redirect to the Wikiproject. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Byllis

Alexikoua is again trying to prove the Greek character of the city(basically trying to include as many times as possible the word Greek in the article). The city is only once attested as a polis in the 6th century AD and I added the source about that. Also the city was conquered by Pyrrhus, but Alexikoua was again trying to find sources that say that he was its founder, so everything I added was blindly reverted [21] including the link to Theoroi which became sacred Greek envoys. At this point he's blindly reverting every source he doesn't like on Bylis and on Ioannina Vilayet. I added all possible views about the demographics, including extreme Greek ones and he again blindly reverted me [22]. He removed one of the views that he didn't like and the Greek view became According to the official Ottoman census, although he knows that Ottoman censi didn't document citizens' ethnicity. FutureP I'm at a complete loss, because whatever I do he'll just continue reverting.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I did my part regarding the NPOV of the section and I added all the views even if the Greek one contradicts all others. For example in Preveza, which Sakellariou labels predominantly Greek in 1908(the year of the census) of the two deputies that were elected in the sanjak Preveza, one was Hamdi Çami and the other Azmi Omer Akalin. I tried to explain again already known concepts like the millet system, but I'm getting again the usual IDIDNTHEARIT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Content dispute

Hello there, I'm just reminding you that your discussion with BabbaQ over at AN/I has been left unresolved. This dispute was brought to my attention via BabbaQ because we've worked together in some areas, but this article falls within a subject area of which I know very little. I therefore saw it fit to give the topic to someone who knew, and thus left a discussion at the article's WikiProject, which has yet to receive a response. BabbaQ then posted the matter on AN/I and you chose to respond. Can I please ask you to clear up the many questions which BabbaQ has asked you, or hand it on to someone else who will. Many thanks, Orphan Wiki 11:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Republic of Kosovo"

Hi, I recall you've done a lot of work in the MOSMAC area, and a similar issue is brewing. See Template talk:Country data Kosovo for an example, where at least one editor is advocating using Republic of Kosovo in articles, instead of Kosovo (i.e. [[Republic of Kosovo|Kosovo]]). I have no strong opinion on the existence of distinct Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo articles (one for the state, one for the geographical region), but as long as that is the case, it seems to me that the [[Republic of Kosovo|Kosovo]] style of wiki markup is not only acceptable, but preferred, similar to the MOSMAC precedent (and for China and Ireland, to cite two other examples). Your feedback would be appreciated, thanks. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aegean Bulgarians is a up as a live article again..

Hey, FPasS
Despite the new {{talkheader}}, {{calmtalk}} on its talkpage, Aegean Bulgarians is up again, still as contoverted as ever.
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrative request

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, Can you please delete this page for me. The person being nominated has declined so no need for a declined nomination wandering around, thanks. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 07:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 07:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

Thanks for the advice, I had just forgotten my usual method of converting it to PNG file. I have some further work to do on it, anyway Slovenski Volk (talk)

oh, you made that map; Very nice; and so is the Regnum Sclavorum ! For some reason, when i upload it on my inkscape, it has these blue lines accross it !? DO you have/come across one which includes down to central Greece at least ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with image upload

You undid an image I uploaded on Douglas S. Freeman High School. The image is directly from the website and is under full permission from Henrico County Public Schools to post it on the page. What selection should I select for the copyright liscence? Thanks, Rsteilberg 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. We need an explicit free license (such as cc-by-sa) from the copyright owner. The license statement can be forwarded by e-mail to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org", or it can be given through a note on the original school website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:INTM4.jpg

The next time you delete a picture without hesitation please let the one who uploaded it know. Ususally I get a message when I tagged it with the wrong fur. You were the first who just deleted it immediatly. Not a very appropriate way to contribute here. Shameless (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but per WP:CSD F7, non-free images with clearly false tags do get deleted immediately, without the need for a warning or waiting period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

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

• Habsburg empire ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, point taken :-) Although they are clearly being shown in a European harbour, and specifically in Lisbon if we go by the context of the book it was part of, so they wouldn't be in the process of being "loaded with riches". Unloaded, if anything. And honestly, I have no idea how separate the systems of colonial exploitation between the two countries would be during the time of dynastic union. The ships described by Johann Staden and de Bry were supposedly going to Brazil for trade. Not really on the route of the typical Spanish treasure fleets, as far as I understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edit-warrior

Would you intervene with this gentleman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.47.118.12? Out of comrol reverter, no apparent respect or patience whatsoever.--Galassi (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by A "Macedonian"

Can you please intervene? user: A Macedonian recently made some edits on Republic of Macedonia by introducing a "Name" section. He mentions many times that the word Macedonia is Greek, from a Greek noun, related to a modern Greek adjective. One look at his user page and it's obvious why he is being repetitive. I tried toning it down because it is a sensitive issue, but he reverted my edits as "Vandalism" (???). Now I am having second thoughts on whether that name section should be removed all together. Thanks. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied on my user page as soon as I saw your message, apologising (no more edits for me after 2.00 a.m. my time!) since you are right. However Name section will stay, nothing wrong with that. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

de bry

Nice work identifying him; I've added the pic to his article. What I really appreciate is that it made discover a connection from him to Erik Dahlberg through Matthäus Merian. It was a small world. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of 83.7.169.45

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. 83.7.169.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, - Vianello (Talk) 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Looks like the IP in question is caught in a range block. Wanted to bounce this to you as the blocking admin.

Thanks for the notification. I've unblocked the range for now to avoid the collateral damage, assuming this is a good-faith user. There's been a rather persistent problem on that range though, so it might have to be reinstated at a later date. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Thanks for taking care of it. - Vianello (Talk) 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reason

I had my summary already made in another program. I decided to use the photos from those websites. I then realised that I had already taken photos during my trip to Goolwa. Five days later (today) I decide to upload the photos and when entering the summary I forgot to edit it. Thankyou, Caleb Bond (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AE

About the disputes--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FFD discussions

How long are FFD discussions normally open for? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Seven days, normally, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Which is why I'm a little surprised that you deleted File:Hurricane Hugo DC-3 wreck.jpg which was only nominated for deletion yesterday. Apart from the nominator's deletion rationale and my oppose, no other editor has contributed to the discussion. You may well agree with the nominator, but to delete the file so soon does not allow the community the chance to have their say. May I ask that you undelete the file for now, and re-open the discussion? It may well be that the file is deleted after seven days, and if so then I will accept that. Your early deletion of the file seems to be in error to me. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that one. Sorry, I hadn't actually made the connection; only noticed now you were the uploader. But this was a valid speedy. It's not uncommon for a speedy deletion to "overtake" an FFD and make it be closed early. This one was a CSD #F7b ("Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately.") This is one of the strongest CSDs and really doesn't leave much room for discretion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, you are more knowledgeable about these things than I am. A note on the FFD discussion as to why it was speedy deleted would probably have been a good idea. I suppose I could always add an external link to the original source in the list article. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right about the FFD notification, apologies for omitting that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple articles on one and the same event/s.

Hi, Future. What is your view about this closely related articles: Battle of Sliva, Mečkin Kamen and Battle of Kruševo. May they be redirected to the Kruševo Republic and is this necessary? Regs. Jingby (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RFAR Henri Coanda

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Need your help

See WP:BLPN#S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. Vensatry (talk · contribs) has a talk page full of complaints, one from you, with no response to any of them. I'm not around much until April and would appreciate it if you'd handle this. May be a case of WP:COMPETENT? Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

I'm kind of an AE virgin. Is WP:DIGWUREN the most applicable ArbCom case for Romanian/Hungarian disputes, or is there one that is more focused on this particular area? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Romania/Hungaria should probably be handled under Digwuren. Romania alone has sometimes also been done under Arbmac, but the Hungarian connection would overstretch that one a bit, geographically. (And don't listen to them when they tell you that Hungary is Central Europe, not Eastern Europe ;-) Is that the Iaaasi et al situation you're dealing with? About time somebody took that in hand, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always avoided this type of quagmire, as I don't enjoy it and that's pretty much why I'm here. But having looked into this a little last night, and being depressed and annoyed at how many H/R editors spend 33% of their time sniping at the other side, 33% of their time defending problem editors from their own side, and 33% of their time creating sock puppets, I am considering acting out of character, and attempt to address this delicate issue by wading in with both barrels blazing and handing out blocks like candy (mixed metaphor, I know). But I'm going to think more about how best to approach this today, and wanted to read the most appropriate ArbCom case carefully; I would also like to limit the amount of time I spend at AE defending my actions. My gut instinct would be to warn once for battleground behavior, broadly construed, then block indef if it's repeated. But I assume that would get overturned as too unfriendly at AE, even if I am draconian with both sides equally? Like I said, I'm going to meditate on it a bit today. if you've any generic advice, it is welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re

Here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

French & German

Could you review Myth of Skanderbeg? Antid. can't speak French/German and he has used many French/German sources.

Btw what's the MOS regarding subdialects? If X is a subdialect of Y, which is a dialect of Z then would the correct article title be X Y or X Z?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

About the second question: I don't think there's a general rule for that, nor do I see any reason why there should be. "X Y", "X Z", just "X" alone, "X (dialect)", I'm sure we have all of these. If the second part of the term is not a fixed part of the conventional appellation but more of a disambiguating addition, then the choice of Y and Z probably just depends on what is the most salient to the outside reader. Concrete example? (Don't tell me this is going to be about Arvanitika or Çam, pleaaaaase.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's about the Vaccarizzo subdialect of Arbëreshë: Should the title be Vaccarizzo Arbëreshë or Vaccarizzo Albanian?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad then ;-) – I'd go for "Albanian", because it's just so much better known and easier to identify. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Photo Confusion

On a message board I was told I had to upload a photo from tinypic to avoid copyright issues. Plus I have Asperger's Syndrome and I have trouble completley understanding things. And1987 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

RE Talk:FOB Ramrod kill team

"Can you both please take a step back and let others decide? You've both made your arguments heard."

Fair enough, however you should know that I believe this to be a question of law and verifiability rather then consensus. That said, I'm off to bed. V7-sport (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

img muros

Dear Sir. I thought that Mariano Badía,an engraver could be the artist. Apparently i was wrong. This painting was probably made, according to the catalogue "Museo naval de Madrid - Pintura de Historia Marítima y de Batallas y Combates Navales" by "L. Vallejo" and it dates from 1872. What i've uploaded is a coloured copy of the engraving, distributed by the foundation of the Museum. Good bye Pietje96 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that, because as you rightly said, the paiting makes no sense at all. It must be deleted! Thank you. Pietje96 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

you're right

Thanks for your correction of my error on the Iman al-Obaidi article. The source is not at all ambiguous - it was my error without any chance of appeal. Boud (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivor Ichikowitz

I've contacted Ivor Ichikowitz's website already asking them to follow the Wikipedia steps in order to grant use of the image. This should be completed by the end of the week. Biggleswiki (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Vaccarizzo Albanian

I started it, but I haven't added yet many features(vowel reduction etc.). It'll become a great article after I get my copy of Hamp's work regarding the dialect's phonology(195 pages).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing Bhadrakali Temple

Dear Fut.Perf,

Thank you for your comments on my edits of the above article on Bhadrakali Temple. I am a new comer to the Wikipedia editor's role and am yet to get a hang of the technique of correct and precise editing. I have gone through the help pages of Wikipedia and the links you have suggested. I think it will take sometime for me to understand the procedures.

About this article in particular, I am born and brought up in Warangal. I used to visit the Bhadrakali temple regularly since my childhood. I Know Sri Ganapathi Sasthri personally for the past 30 years and he is the person who has developed the temple. It is a wonderful experience to meet such a person who is above 105 years of age. I am planning to post a photograph of his on this page. I feel that we should give him the credit he deserves.

I have noted that the article's style of writing is little bit raw and some of the view points expressed by others (particularly in the 'Major Attractions section) are speculative. Please discuss whether I can delete that portion and include some relevant facts about the temple, the city and some of the near by important ancient temples. I would like to rewrite the entire article to give focus on the temple in a fluid manner.

I will also try to get a free photograph of the deity to post on the page.

Thanks Rao Devulapally (User:Rraod) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the article. I'm not sure what you mean by "a little bit raw", but I must admit I haven't looked too closely into the article. Just make sure whatever you add is neutral and well referenced. Photographs (self-taken ones) will of course be highly welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivor Ichikowitz

Hi, I've been contacted by Paramount Group to say that a request has been sent to Wikipedia, granting a free license on Ivor Ichikowitz's photo. Biggleswiki (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good job. The people at the OTRS e-mail response system will pick it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deletions of the spoken word Greek myths

Hello,

I am new here, so there may be some explanation I am not aware of, but I see that you deleted a number of Greek myths that I had given permission to publish. The rationale given in the files (see this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_January_30#File:Narcissus_-_wiki.ogg ) was that permission had not been given, but why did no one take the trouble to check? All you had to do was drop the publisher a note. Please be so kind as to undo what was done. Thanks, Calimach (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete those files, only nominated them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you do not feel responsible for the damage and will not do anything to correct it? Calimach (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to touch anything connected with Haiduc (talk · contribs) only with a ten-foot pole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Epirus across Greece and Albania.svg map

It seems there is a disagreement about the caption of this map [[23]] (it's similar with this one you created once [[24]]). Any suggestion would be helpfull, but since the initial caption was placed by you in the past, I see no reason why this is wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added whose map the largest concentration one is and the response were the reverts.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Zjarri: According to your recent restriction imposed You are also to make all reasonable efforts to avoid articles where you know them to be active., [[25]] since your first edits are done in this articles and topics (i.e. the presence of the Greeks in Albania&Epirus&Northern Epirus), I kindly ask you at least to initiate a discussion in the article's talkpage instead of placing misleading edit summaries (precise etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All I did was to make Fut's caption more precise.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Iman al-Obeidi

Future Perfect, I'm just letting you know that I've nominated Iman al-Obeidi for DYK , in case you find the discussion there interesting. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:BAR-1 NWS Site Komakuk Beach Yukon Territory - 2003.jpg

The Canadian government site where the image was obtained states the following:

Information on this Web site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal or public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified.

http://www.pc.gc.ca/avis-notice_e.asp

Which I included in the fair use boilerplate. Should this image just be moved to commons?

Regards Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid since it's a "non-commercial use only" license it's not good enough for us. We have no choice but to treat the image fully under the criteria for WP:non-free content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article: Syed Ali Hasan

In response to your recent edition in the article, Syed Ali Hasan - I would like to say that the poems provided in the article were written in 1900 AD (100 years back) and hence no coypright issue. Moreover citation / references has also been provided. Please help in formating as per encyclopedic style as you suggested. These poems are very important from historical point of view. Thanks Hashemi1971 (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken about the public domain status (hadn't read the references properly), but I'd still say it's simply unencyclopedic to include it. It's a silly pastiche of English folk ballads of the 19th century, of no literary or historical merit whatsoever, of the type that were written a dime a dozen by enthusiastic fanboy students all over the place. We don't include cheap fan art like that in our articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gent Strazimiri

You can delete the file immediately if you want to because a PD one can be found on the parliament's official page [26].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that one is PD? The page is clearly marked "Kuvendi i Shqiperisë. Të gjitha të drejtat e rezervuara". I can figure out that much Albanian, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What made me think that was the PD-Albania-exempt, which after reading it again I realized that it only refers to text and not photo material.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

my baseball photos

Hi, you removed the Bronson Arroyo photo I uploaded as an "unambiguous copyright violation." It's not - I took the photo and own the rights to it.

It's true it was posted at RedReporter.com as well, but I posted it there. I use the same user name there as here.

BubbaFan (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. I missed the attribution on that site. And congratulations for the fine photographs – it shows how cynical one gets when one does a lot of image patrolling; the better the photographs, the quicker the automatic "must be a copyvio" reflex. Sorry for this mistake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies.
Message added 12:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

İstanbul

Future perfect I don't know who,but one vandal edit climate tables again.The lowest temprature is -8 degree but that vandal makes -16 degree always. Sorry I incidently undo some changes when I research that vandal.Please look at that page for climate informations.http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=ISTANBUL yours sincelery sorry again for undoing some of your changes incidently. (Gerçekler (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

Proposition

I would advice you to write some essay about your thesis "Infoboxes must burn in Hell". I (and few others) find it very good and useful, but we dont have anything more then that image and some older discusions. When you have some time, write, at least few sentences, i would be quite interested to use that essay. Thanks in advance! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Partha08401

Hi Fut.Perf, I am so confused why my editied article was deleted (Sree Sree Gita Sangha). Basically, this temple was founded in 2000 and it was the first bangladeshi hindu temple in the area of South Jersey. I went their and watched their community's work and that was why I would like to start my article Sree Sree Gita Sangha. But, unfortunately it was deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Partha08401

Dialects, Copyright and RS

1. I started Southern Geg, but its parent dialect articles is Gheg, so should it be renamed too? There are more results about Southern Geg than Southern Gheg, but also more results about Gheg Albanian than Geg Albanian.
2. Does copyright policy of local wikipedias override wikimedia copyright policy? On the Albanian wikipedia there are about 650 images of book and magazine covers, which probably can't be used but they have been uploaded as fair use.[27][28]
3. RfCs, RSNs and other multiple discussions weren't enough for some users, who are again adding the 19th-early 20th century sources regarding Skanderbeg on Vojsava Tripalda. It has been said too many times that such 1895 works aren't RS, but Antidiskriminator still WP:IDHTs. Many Albanian users are getting involved in this as it goes on and it's becoming an edit-war between many users, but I think that if you commented on the issue like that the last time this happened they would all stop.(not needed after this [29], but please check that copyright issue and the southern geg article)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

---

1. Or my RfC will be ok, so multiple uninvolved users will talk, and not just one, even if he is admin! :) But your opinion is welcomed anyway. Page is protected, and there will be no edit warring possible... Also, vast majority of sources where never used in this article, so... Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

File:20 Fenchurch Street Impression.jpg

Hi, I'm sure you're in the right about your recent deletion of my photo of 20 Fenchurch St. I just wonder if you could explain the reasoning to me because I'm a relative newbie. The photo was publicly available in the sense it was on the artist's own website. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shard_London_Bridge_night_and_day.jpg you'll see: "The buildings do not exist yet, therefore there is no non-free alternative." Why wasn't this the case for mine? Cheers. --RatnimSnave (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Mostly because you didn't say anything about it. From the image description page I didn't even understand it was a simulation of a not-yet-completed building. In that case, you could indeed make a case along the same lines as the other image you cite. You'd need to declare it as "non-free" (the fact that it's "freely available" on a website doesn't mean it's free of copyright), and it's important you add a non-free use rationale explaining why you need it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

oops roflcopter!

oops we both made a 3rr report against 70.130 at the same time! XD! feel free to remove mine if you haven't already--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The image File:Chepnis.jpg

Hello, I added all of the links to those images you mentioned. Are they acceptable?- F.Mehmet (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This Guidance Barnstar is awarded to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for providing much-appreciated guidance helping a fellow editor navigate the treacherous subtleties of Russian law, American law, and (probably) Federation law regarding images. Thank you! Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, much appreciated. I don't often get awards for the image stuff :-) (By the way, it is a little-known fact that the fundamentals of Federation law actually grew out of the bye-laws of WP:AE, back at the time when the Foundation was taking over world rule.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I gave a justification. That screenshot(s) illustrates the intro scene of the special edition of that video game. What kind of justification should I give? I created that article, I just wanted to put a few images that illustrates the game. Thanks.

--Hydao (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I'm sorry for the "trouble". Well, I'm going to keep two images that I posted before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfs95.jpg

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfs95team.jpg

The first illustrates the special opening with a famous fooball player (I think I wrote about it...), so it should be in that article and the second illustrates all the available italian teams. That's all. Thanks.

--Hydao (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"you can simply enumerate the teams in the text, there's no need to see an image of all their logos to understand that" (Well, that's your opinion... I have mine.)

Anyway, later I'll edit that article again but for now, don't delete those 2 files. About the first image... it is a "intro sequence" to show the drink and the player, but well, I don't want to waste my time with this. Later. :) o/

--Hydao (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

293×522 is really big indeed... You know, there are thousands of people out there with vision problems, now they have to strain to read what's in the picture 160×298.

I agreed when you said "too many images" but now this? Seriously. I was editing that article with passion and you just messed it all.

--Hydao (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of peace and respect. I just think you are not RESPECTING my wiki-work. Too many images, fine, agreed. Now you want to delete that image too? Sorry but I don't agree with that. Sure, let the tag be there then, if it makes you happy and realized. Have a nice day.

--Hydao (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Map file: TL2-Area.jpg

I believe that you've deleted this map mistakenly. It is a map, and the woman who made the map is sitting next to me and I have her full permission to use it. It is also freely available on her blog (bonoboincongo.com/maps). It is important to have the map of the study region for better understanding of the Tshuapa-Lomami-Lualaba Conservation Landscape. Thanks.

Thanks.

Hey -- she's added CC icons to the Maps section. Is that sufficient to indicate permission? Thanks. 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

She's removed the non-commercial stipulation. Amalthya (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)amalthya

Hey, it's been several days since we met the stipulations for using the map on Wikipedia -- any updates? Thanks. Amalthya (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nikapnz

Hi, I saw you gave this user a final warning on 4 April for uploading copyvio images. They have since uploaded two more copyrighted images of Alison McAtee (Logs for "Nikapnz" ), it seems that when one gets deleted they upload a new one to replace it. January (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Sparrow chick.jpg

Can you delete this file? F2, but may need to be deleted on Commons (see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Sparrow_chick.jpg). The only usage is intended to be a different Commons file with the same name. (I found your name looking at the latest file deletions.) Thanks, —innotata 17:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Aww, cute sparrow pics. Done, all three pics should be useable now. I guess the licensing will be okay too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

dairat al maarif

Hi Fut.Perf, I am so shocked, why my created article was deleted (dairat al maarif). Kindly please revert as it has no relation with advertisment.its not an private or public company, its and government institute runs under Osmania University since 1944 founded in 1888. Basically, this Institution was founded in 1888 and it is the first Indian Institute to publish and edit Arabic Books.It also have historical importance as this was formed in the previous kingdom of muslim ruler of Hyderabad State, india. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:omer123hussain

Well, I don't care if it's a private company or state institution. It did read like an advertisement, and was largely unsourced. "A Pioneer in Manuscript Publishing […] It is probably not an exaggeration to say that anyone who has read classical Arabic literature has heard of the publications […] set out a clear cut purpose […] has stuck faithfully to the criteria it laid down […] How were these guidelines actually carried out in the Dairat al Maarif’s publications? Only a detailed reading of the prefaces and introductions to the various volumes will tell. […]" – This is all simply not the style of an encyclopedia article. I can see that the institution may well be important enough to warrant an article, and I thank you for taking the initiative of writing one, but if you want to keep it it will have to be very substantially rewritten, with a thorough change of tone, and much better sourcing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have restored and "userfied" it, i.e. moved it into a private subpage of your userpage (User:Omer123hussain/Dairat al maarif), so you can work on it conveniently. Please let me know when you think it's developed enough to be moved back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Very thanks for your instant response.

I apologize for inconvenient caused you. As soon as the article is furnished with references and correct tone, I may update you, for the restoration of the article for general view. I shall appreciate your co ordination and grammatical/linguistic correction (if required) to make this “Dairat al maarif “ more understandable and informative article. Thanks once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:omer123hussain

Hi, I am done with the correction and provided the references for dairat al maarif Kindly restore the article for general view. Thanks and Regards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:omer123hussain

IP block affecting my account

Thanks for looking into that, FP. I switched to a different provider in order to edit. Let's see how it goes tomorrow. Noetica^Tea? 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deadendmarker

I tweaked the code so it doesn't tag redirects anymore. Jamietw (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Final warning

Yes, I am going to stop messing around these images and re-uploading myself. BTW, I going to quit and leave Wikipedia myself and never been seen again. Please don't block me while I am permanently gone. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious images

Hi, I was doing some minor work on Mercer University and noticed a suspicious image, [File:Woodruff House - Mercer University.jpg] and after a little digging noticed you deleted various images by User:Korea2006 on 23 January 2011 for copyright violations. In particular a file of similar name to the current, File:Woodruff House at Mercer University.JPG, was deleted as a copyright violation and the source given was http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1356259. Unfortunately it appears that link no longer works so I'm unable to find the images to add tag for speedy deletion for copyright violations. Also looking at User:Korea2006’s contribs, it appears he has restored a number of images that you previously deleted. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my copyright question about maps . . .

I don't appreciate your flip answer, though I do appreciate the new information you gave me. I suggest you might be a bit more friendly in your approach to people whom you don't even know. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, your advice if you may

Do you know who I should ask to request that the following move request be closed? The 7 day limit has already passed by a wide margin. Thank you for your time.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a big backlog at requested moves, so I'm afraid you'll just have to wait a bit. But since I suppose you actually want an outcome of no action, it shouldn't be too onerous on you, should it? I'm not supposed to take admin action in the area, so I'm afraid I can't oblige. (And I'm not sure I myself agree with the present title either, but I see it'll be hard to get consensus for anything else, just as it has been impossible to get consensus for any improvement at all on this page for several years.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Mariocrossing1

FPAS, I know you do good work defending Wikipedia against copyvio images, even if it isn't always appreciated (even by myself on occasions lol). Re Mariocrossing1 (talk · contribs) You slapped him with a notice warning of the proposed deletion of a file on a blank user page. He's subsequently achieved another two notices. In these cases, maybe you could also add a {{Welcome}} and maybe a brief pointer to the IUP also. You will see that I have done this on his talk page. If an editor is only being told that they are doing wrong, and not given any pointers so that they can learn why what they are doing is wrong, and what steps they need to take to avoid repeating the error, then they will continue to make the same mistakes again. This could lead to either getting blocked, or losing heart and leaving the project. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whether a "welcome" template would be of that much help actually. The "di-...-notice" templates are actually quite rich in information about how to "avoid repeating the error", if only people would read them (which I suspect few of them do). Perhaps it's more a problem of information overkill than lack of information. You are of course right that WP:IUP ought to be among the links given, and, I'm actually a bit surprised it's not already part of {{Di-no license-notice}} and friends, now that I look at them again. The messages created by ImageTaggingBot do contain that link, funnily (what templates are those the bot uses?). On the whole, I think our system of messages and help texts on these issues leaves quite a bit to be desired, but what it needs is slimming down, not yet more messages, and the "welcome" templates in particular offer very little on the topic of image problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't force an editor to click on the links, but if they've not been given the links to click on, then it weakens our case if there's further action required. I'm all for trying to prevent editors getting blocked if it is at all possible, but won't hesitate to block those who aren't here to improve the project. The majority of editors, once it is explained why what they are doing wrong is wrong, learn from the experience. Mjroots (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've tried the carrot, now the stick. Following a further upload of a copyrighted image without licencing or rationale, I've issued a uw-upload3. Suggest that further uploads are dealt with by a request at ANI for a community restriction on uploading images. The next step after that is a block. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

iws at Kosovo

Hi, I'm inviting you to discuss my recent change of Kosovo article: [30] which I made with the edit summary of "WP:BRDly removing hr - others noticed peculiarities with this: on bs:Kosovo apart from hr, also de and la are excluded, but User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's Babel has de and la, therefore avoiding conflict)" - if you wish, of course. I must admit I was a little surprised/disappointed (actually not sure - something in between I guess) by the lack of your response to my last reply regarding this issue. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would I want to respond to your posting there? It contained nothing of substance to respond to. You have not addressed the issue. I will therefore revert you, since my argument still stands unchallenged. And what on earth do my Babel entries have to do with anything? I am perfectly able to figure out the topics of hr:Kosovo just as well as those of de: and la:. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here on earth I presumed that Babel entries also somehow show the level of ability to figure out the topics of different language articles. It seems to me that you think that my presumption about existence of levels of ability has no basis. Maybe I change my opinion and/or maybe you change yours. Anyway, no hard feelings on my behalf - hope the same is on yours. --Biblbroks (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Images at Ai Weiwei

I and other editors have uploaded some examples of Ai Weiwei's art to his article. Could you comment on the appropriateness of their fair use status? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent work

See [31] for some recent renovations and upgrades Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Omayra Sanchez

Does this photo [32] fall under the fair use criteria?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Insulin Signal transduction Pathway and blood level glucose=

Hello Mr/Mrs. Future Perfect at sunrise,

You recently deleted one of the picture unloaded on the wiki page "Insulin Signal transduction Pathway and blood level glucose" The is the link for the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rshadid/Insulin_signal_transduction_pathway_and_regulation_of_blood_glucose. I do not understand why this picture violates the copy right? This picture was available on the Nature magazine website for free. I also gave credit for the researcher and the magazine. Would you please just explain what i did wrong so i can fix it and upload the picture with out any problems or violations? This the link for the picture i wanted to upload http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/fig_tab/414799a_ft.html (Rshadid (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

regarding the last comment

Thanx for informing me. Best regards and all the best to you. --biblbroks (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Konotop

Wo hast du bitte unkonstruktives Verhalten meinerseits auf der Diskussionsseite festgestellt? Ich habe meine Edits immer begründet, wie auch in diesem Fall. Entweder kurz in der Editzusammenfassung, oder auf Anfrage detaillierter auf der Diskussionsseite. Ich arbeite immer mit Quellen, dazu nicht aus dem 19. Jahrhundert, die nicht modernen wissenschaftlichen Standards entsprechen, sondern mit modernen seriösen Wissenschaftlern. Galassi hat nicht annähernd etwas Konstruktives geleistet, er blockt und bremst, nur weil ihm das ideologisch nicht in den Sinn passt. Ich bin wirklich erstaunt, dass du das nicht siehst, überhaupt nicht differenzierst und immer eine größere Keule für mich hast, als für diesen unkonstruktiven User, der argumentativ meistens einfach dicht macht. --Voyevoda (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Old movie screenshots

Thanks for that; I wasn't sure, so I played it safe. But I'll follow this format from now on. Mutt (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you on about?

The images were modified as to background,proportion and size. The images were made available for modification under the Creative Commons license under which they were originally uploaded.FordFE com (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you make such modifications, you must still correctly acknowledge their authors, and can't simply declare them your own. Even if it's just between fellow Wikipedia editors, you are still violating somebody else's copyright if you fail to make the correct attribution. That's part of what the Creative Commons license actually says. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

and how exactly are you supposed to do that in the midst of filling out the form? Why can't one upload and then go back and edit the information surrounding the image? Where do you enter "image cropped and background cleaned up" exactly in the upload form?FordFE com (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you had technical trouble with that. A good place to put this info would be in the "Author" and/or "Source" fields of the {{Information}} template, if you're using that (it's a preloaded part of some versions of the upload form), or simply put it in in normal wikitext in the "description" field if you came through an upload form that didn't have such elements pre-loaded. It is in fact also possible to edit the image description page later. Just click on the "edit" tab on top of the image page, just like on any other page, and you'll see it's just a normal wiki page that you can edit in the normal way. – Sorry if I sounded a bit curt at first; it was just that I was on new-images patrol and had had to spend quite a bit of time to find what those images were and where they came from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bandurist

Is this user still restricted under DIGWUREN? I see back in June 2010 you blocked him indefinitely, then changed on explanation you dropped the block and "topic-banned [Bandurist] indefinitely from all edits related to WWII history and Ukrainian–Polish–Jewish–Russian ethnic conflicts." But I cannot find where the restriction was lifted. I do see him editing, between December 2010 and today on Ukraine vs Kievan Rus, though this is conflict over terminology, not armed conflict, Yanukovych's ethnicity (Ukrainian or Russian], Babi Yar (where I previously found that he had added an edited image... since deleted..., on Jewish Cossacks (Jewish-Polish relations), Holodomor and more,. Was your restriction only to conflicts during WWII? (thus, from this selection, only Babi Yar would be problematic). Or either WWII or any of the Ukrainian-Polish-Jewish-Russian ethnic conflicts? Jd2718 (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

I wish you had not rush to delete the file that i uploaded which was a free content to be uploaded to wikipedia without any problems.I read the terms of agreements by the provider before i uploaded it to wikipedia.Please can you bring it back for me.thanks Earlymen message me! 06:01, 01 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no source information in the file, and no explanation why and how it was supposedly free to "lift" as you said, and since such a freedom is objectively only a very remote possibility, I had to assume the claim was in error as long as I don't at least have some tangible hint at a justification. I now find the image was probably taken from the website of a Nigerian newspaper [33], which is copyrighted. (BTW, "femioluboso" isn't the copyright owner of the file; he's just the webmaster of the site.) I can see no free copyright license anywhere on that site. If there is one, please point me directly to it; in the (unlikely) event that there is a license free enough for us I can of course restore the file. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Awkward Friend Dave

Your rapid lack of consideration is not appreciated. You deleted the article at Awkward Friend Dave because it did not have references, yet you completely ignored that I had Template:Under_construction at the top, meaning I wasn't fucking done with it you tool. Please learn to read before you act irrationally. Have a super day. MFTU 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check out WP:CSD#A7. Your article contained no hint at any realistic claim how and why this band could be notable, and, most crucially, it didn't look likely it would get to include any such claim even if expanded, because it already contained enough information for me to see that it is a very young band, with nothing more of an achievement than a demo CD. This is a classic case where this speedy deletion criterion kicks in. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ^TOOL 17:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

How are they young? Most members of the band are mid-to-late-20s. Furthermore, if age is a restriction on a band, then I request the speedy deletion of Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus. The source for this article was copied from another and I edited what was already there, and have not yet added the content that makes this band unique and notable. As I stated on yet another person's talk page who flagged it, I don't have the time to sit on here for 8 hours a day writing and writing and writing. I don't see how Wikipedia expects to grow if it lacks the patience of 24 hours for an article that is obviously not vandalism to be developed upon. MFTU 17:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD's appeal at WP:AE

Hello FP. Do you consider yourself to be an uninvolved admin for purposes of closing the case? If you want to participate in the decision, I suggest moving your comment into the 'Result of the appeal' section. I doubt that I would try to close it myself, but I am hoping we will at least get some admin comments in the 'Result' section. If I had closed the original complaint, I might have imposed the three-month ban from DIGWUREN topics that was withheld back in February in the hope that TFD's issues would improve. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, I do consider myself uninvolved and competent to participate in a closing, but I thought I'd first air my views in the "discussion" section while waiting for more outside input. I don't think those two modes of participation are mutually exclusive, do you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's clear. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

IP

Hi. As you protected several articles, I just informing you that the same IP continued his usual "operations" on different articles as well [34], [35] . M.K. (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who's making these edits (and I sincerely have no idea), seeing as how even the smallest, 10 person village (and I'm being LITERAL here, not hyperbolic), in Poland just absolutely HAS TO have its German name in its article in the lede, who cares about these edits? They are perfectly reasonable and within policy. You guys remember "policy" right? You can't be selective or biased here, whether that concerns administrative actions, or naming policy. How about just leaving it alone (barring an honest but difficult effort to solve this issue once and for all which nobody seems to have the time or honesty to undertake).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I remind you that one of the reasons you were sanctioned in EEML was the pattern of collective tag-team badgering to prevent administrative action against your friends. One would have thought you'd know better by now than to stick your nose into administrative enforcement processes regarding other editors. Take this as an official warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help, people are revert warring me in Palestine Papers article

The first was within 5 minutes from an old user accusing me of OR. When I asked why the revert he ridiculed me for "belly-aching". This user previously threatened me on the very same article that I would eventually be blocked. After I reverted back my edits after showing that it wasn't OR, another user reverted my entire offering saying that my source, al-jazeera english was a "POV-ish" source and that I had injected POV into the article. As well as plagiarized it. Which is contradictory in the sense he/she accuses me of creating an even more pov edit by plagiarizing a "pov-ish" source. The source being the original source for the Palestine Papers to be exact.

Please help. Some users do not practice good faith and never try to use the talk page of the article in creating consensus. I always ask people to post in the talk page if they wish to change because i believe in the consensus format of creating articles yet none of these editors ever say anything at all. Now some of these same individuals are trying to get me into a revert war. Please help. I ask you since you have acted fairly before in regards to other individuals who attempted to tamper with this article before. Thanks for your time. --General Choomin (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The map

Hello Future. I wrote on the deletion page for the map of the "ethnic minorities" in Macedonia and Greece that the user Meliniki continues to add his maps in the articles. The only solution to stop that is either blocking his account or IP address or deletion of the maps from Commons. Take a look here, here and here. I really hope that the maps will be deleted in order to stop this silliness. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the cross-wiki spam of his ID address and here is the cross-wiki spam of his account. Should he be reported for spam?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pff, I don't know what this guy's issue is, but I can tell for sure he's not Bulgarian. He has left a note on my talk page on bg wiki. --Laveol ^T 15:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know he is not BG, he is Greek or something. Plus, his IP reverted three times (3RR) here. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is located in the Netherlands, but report him on 3RR for the edit-warring. Btw it's a not an IP evasion if his block has ended.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Report for spam then :-) Truth can't be hidden! We seen in census when you say to them your ethnicity and they check "macedonian". Are Albanians also "macedonians?". Let's see the state after 20 years, you live overseas, but i partly live in the state and know better than you, when the country will disolve i will have the problem that you make today, cuz i live there. But you? You will have your asses safe, and then you will recall Serbian Bulgarian or even Greek! Jesus Christ! The truth that is known to all of us, can be hiden forever, building a state in a lie, only you make damages for tomorrow. You make albanians rage more and more, this is the reason why they don't take all over today, 20 years later they will claim the state, already they speak albanian in the parliament! But then again it will be my problem living there and you live overseas like nothing happen another betrayer, you will claim Serbian and Bulgarian nationality!--Meliniki (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we still obliged to tolerate this user? Seriously, he is not for here, but for some forum. His editing is nothing but trolling.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruption?

I am somewhat bemused with this your edit summary [36]. Yes, I concede that by accident I posted in the section for uninvolved users. However, my post was preceded by the thread started by Collect, who by no means can be considered uninvolved, so I just added my post to the end of that section. The structure of this thread is so confusing that this technical mistake is quite understandable. What disruption are you talking about? In addition, why did you removed my post and not moved it to the more appropriate place? Does it contain something inappropriate?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've personally observed that Fifelfoo has collaborated with TFD on a range of articles, see this. In fact he has had the honour of being placed on formal WP:DIGWUREN notice [37], such is the degree of involvement. --Martin (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Map

Hi. I am trying to download your map Yugoslavia topographic base map.svg. I am trying to download it as a modifiable Inskape file, but for some reason this is not happening. How can I download it so I can remove the modern borders aspect of it to us it for other purposes ? (I think you have uploaded it as PNG format) Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is an SVG file all right. You need to click on the image, wait till the whole thing loads in your browser with all layers (may take a while, since it's huge), and then say "save page as" (not "save picture"). At least that's how it works in my browser.

Of course, the topographic profile is in fact an embedded png bitmap inside the SVG. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A content dispute

Would you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Kolchak ? I deleted a huge coatrack, and another user demands the deletion of a "negative" passage in retaliation.--Galassi (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a case of sockpuppetry too http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2&user2=Moryak .--Galassi (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

I just saw this copyright statement. Will we violate copyright if we use images from this site? If not, would you please tell me under which license can we release the photos? GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help me here! GaneshBhakt (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

1Kanobi

[38] Another sock of Kanobi.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PD-GOVAL

If you read the doc attached to the template you can see that it allowes using files for giving information, due wikipedia give information and source is given it is allowed --Vinie007 12:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See

Free Use for the Purpose of Giving Information 11. It is permitted without the author’s approval and without payment or remuneration but the obligatory citing (mentioning) the source and the author’s name if it is in the original work

Source page 6/19

For that reason i made the template --Vinie007 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And i didn't made it simpily up, in this document is written the exact law of the Albanian state. --Vinie007 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That text has nothing whatsoever to do with an exemption from copyright of works created by the Albanian state. What on earth where you thinking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No not only of the Albanian state but all, but i am busy with Cabinet of Albania article, so for now only these photografs are intresting for me --Vinie007 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My uncle works on ministry of interior and asked him, he said that this can be interpertated that pictures can be free used for giving info perpose. --Vinie007 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The passage you quote from that law only works together with the following three points (11a), (b), (c). (a) is merely about news media and broadcasters being allowed to copy material from each other in the course of reporting of current events; (b) is about copyrighted works that are incidentally displayed during public events that are the object of news reporting; (c) is about public speeches. All of this is just part of the Albanian law's equivalent of what fair use is in the US. None of this has the effect of creating a complete exemption from copyright for some work, i.e. placing it into the public domain. And none of it is even remotely relevant to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but internet is a form of Media, so wikipedia also --Vinie007 15:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It would only be free enough for us if the law allowed anybody to re-use it for any purpose in any medium at any time. Nothing in that law amounts to such a blanket permission in any of the cases mentioned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you tagged images I uploaded with "copyright issue"? These three images are transfered from Lithuania wikipedia because I was unable to use them in English wikipedia. All three images is released with free licence (public domain)... I'm talking about these images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BC_Radvili%C5%A1kis_RKL_Champions.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BC_Radvili%C5%A1kis_against_Chicago_Radvili%C5%A1kis.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BC_Radvili%C5%A1kis_against_KK_%C5%A0iauliai.jpg I provided the links to Lithuania wikipedia in the "Source" section.

What is this...?

Why did you tagged images I uploaded with "copyright issue"? These three images are transfered from Lithuania wikipedia because I was unable to use them in English wikipedia. All three images is released with free licence (public domain)... I'm talking about these images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BC_Radvili%C5%A1kis_RKL_Champions.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BC_Radvili%C5%A1kis_against_Chicago_Radvili%C5%A1kis.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BC_Radvili%C5%A1kis_against_KK_%C5%A0iauliai.jpg I provided the links to Lithuania wikipedia in the "Source" section.

Ouch. Sorry, I was too quick there. Didn't see these were actually Wikipedia links - I just saw something that looked like a bare image url, which normally doesn't work as a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. ;) Pofka

WT:MOS revert war

See User_talk:Dicklyon#Vandalism. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

HELP!

Hello,

Could you tell me how should I create one article which was never acknowledged on web resources because of the lack of awareness in the olden days? How am I supposed to verify WIKI? This is not just, honestly. Your HELP NEEDED! Samia BR (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. What do you mean by an "article which was never acknowledged on web resources"? Can you be a bit more concrete about what you were trying to do? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Samia BR may be referring to this --Shirt58 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Context: FireStation at AAG --Shirt58 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (ps: am now considering changing my username to "Captain Obvious" --Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC) )

Technical Question

I've created and worked on a series of articles about western Ukrainian Russophiles. How would I create a category for this topic? Thanks for your help...Faustian (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No comment on whether it is a good idea to create such a category (is it going to contain biographies? One should be extremely careful about categorizing people by such POV attributions), but on mere technical level, if let's say you wanted to create Category:My strange category about Russophiles, you just click on that redlink as if you wanted to create an article, optionally add a bit of text explaining what the category is supposed to do, and – importantly – add whatever parent categories you want to belong it to (let's say Category:Miscellaneous strange Ukrainian-related topics). Once you've created that more or less empty page, you can start adding category references to the articles you want to be in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't think it's a POV topic; here is the main article I wrote if you're interested.Faustian (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File Redirects

Ah.

I was deleting it off a list of files with no pages that link to it, so I will need to restore the generic ones. Here is the list of the pages that have been deleted - do you know of any other ones that need restoring (and you can go ahead and restore them too)?

Thanks for pointing this out.

The Helpful One 16:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if there's a way to check those deleted contributions quickly, but a quick scan through the list doesn't seem to show any others. The Helpful One 17:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

about motoi sakuraba

motoi sakuraba's page should have his picture

if you delete it you should find a picture to fully article

adminstrator is a manager not a troll to delete it. --KL Joe (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted File:Motoi sakuraba.jpg because it was a copyright violation. Please do not ever again upload images taken from somewhere on the web unless you can prove they have explicitly been released by their author under a free license. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo questions

Hi FPaS. A friend said you were a good person to ask for image questions. I have two:

1) if a copyrighted image is directly commented on (its design, manufacture, etc) in an article, is its use allowed?

2) Please see [39]. It says "No copyright restriction known. Staff photographer reproduction rights transferred to Library of Congress through Instrument of Gift." Is it okay to upload this to Commons and if so, under what license?

Thank you. BarkingMoon (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Both cases sound good to me. The first would be a classic case of Fair use (see our WP:NFC policy). You'd just need to tag it correctly with a {{non-free fair use in}} tag and an informative rationale explaining why you need it and what you need it for. The second case (original library link is [40]) could probably be tagged {{PD-author}}, with a link to the library page and quoting the source information found there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and helpful answer. BarkingMoon (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just in case you didn't see this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

And not a minute too early. I was starving. Yummm. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD's appeal at AE

I just noticed your comment in the 'Discussion among uninvolved editors' where I'd previously overlooked it. I see we discussed this above. Is it time for you to join the other admins in the Result section, i.e. do you want to !vote on having a warning, and if so which. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I have raised your actions on this tread. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

removal of Gallery from Octane Render

Hi... This is with reference to the removal of Rendering samples from Octane Render...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octane_Render&action=history

Firstly, thank you for your time in going thru the page. This page was created by various users of the software, and to document the features/ rendering samples/ user interface and version history etc- to be made available as a ready reference, under the category of Rendering Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rendering_systems). This was done in the most unbiased and neutral way- with adequate references and citations. Also, all these images (non-free) have been contributed by various licensed users of the software, upon permissions from each one of them for use in the Gallery section. If you could please allow us to retain all these images in the page- it would be really helpful in showcasing various ways the software can be used for rendering (e.g. interiors, product design, architecture, character modelling etc.)

For now, temporarily I have put the images back in place- for your consideration.

Thanking you in anticipation. Suhail spa (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that won't work. Please see our policy on non-free content. We can use such images only under some narrowly defined conditions. The way you are using them now, it's in breach of the rule of minimality (a lot more images than would be strictly necessary), that of contextual significance (the images are not the object of individual discussion, so it's not clear to the reader what each of them is actually meant to illustrate), and most crucially: replaceability. If we are talking about copyrights belonging to those users who used the software to produce those graphics, and those users could have released their copyrighted work under a free license but chose not to, and if the aim of including the images here is to illustrate the technical capacities of the software, rather than the artistic achievement of the users, then the images are replaceable with other images that somebody else (you or I, andbody who has access to the software) could create and release freely, and which could illustrate the same features. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing an article creation ban proposal

Hi, I note that you were online recently fixing up Govind Kumar Singh. We could really use a fast track on this matter. As you can see from this user's talk, he intends on making even more stubs against consensus. We are going mad cleaning up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please ignore the above. User:Fram has now put a block in place while discussions continue. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests

Might I askn what you think you are achieving with these over-zealous deletion requests. These are an affront to hard work put in by editors and undermine the quality of pages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Deborah Winters and Matthew Laborteaux.jpg

Hi Future Perfect,

Thanks for pointing out the issue with the photo graphic for the Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo article[[:File:Deborah Winters and Matthew Laborteaux.jpg located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sinclairindex&action=edit&section=8

I mistakenly loaded the photo before finishing my edit to the article. I have since added production information, plot line, and commentary about the photo used. I would like to keep the photo since it encapsulates the picture with two of the film's leads peering inside the crashed plane cargo hold but missing the "deadly cargo" that's inside.

I have three other press photos given out by the production company in 1977 for use in the press, etc., that I would like to use. I am uncertain as to the license type to use.

I appreciate your attention and your assitance.

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert to previous title

Hi, someone is making some redirections and renamings without asking anyone. In the case of Hamza Kazazi he renamed the article by putting the title "bey" even though apparently he was not, in fact there is not a single source of him being bey, while certainly was a popular figure (actually he was head of artisans of the city, far from being a bey). It looks like this guy is pushing some sort of agenda or at least biased POV without a single reference. Could you please revert this article to its previous name? I tried to do it but it keeps telling me that the title exist and only administrators could do it. Regards Aigest (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Historiographer

The editor added a discovery of a map in South Korea. [41] I reverted it. The ref in kr the user provided says that another copy was first found in South Korea. The map was already known and a copy is in Japan. I thought the discovery does not change the situation and not noteworthy. The editor reverted to his edit. [42] Sorry that I undid his edit again but I remember the 1RR rule and self reverted. [43] If I understand correctly the rule, the user should be blocked and I request for it. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not all of the images that I uploaded are come from the internet, some are truly mine.

Now that the drama has subsided

Hi, can you review your application of the Famine Arbcom page bans on Sarah777 in relation to the British Isles page please? I cannot find any anti-British comments made by here at these pages. Her only series of edits (which occur in a sequence) appear to be late at night and don't appear fall under the category of aggressive biased editing as stated in the Arbcom ruling. Especially since the edits were reverted quickly and there was no edit warring. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. This [44] content edit to the article was not merely "aggressive biased editing", it was in fact nothing short of POV-driven vandalism. Sarah777, when making that edit, clearly knew she was falsifying the contents of the page. She knew that the term "B.I." in fact does include Ireland, in the usage of the English-speaking world at large, and that this meaning is the topic of that article. Of course, she doesn't want the world to be that way, but she knows that it actually is that way. Changing an article in order to make it conform to the way you want the world to be rather than to the way you know the world actually is, is vandalism, period.

This together with [45] on the associated talk page, which clearly is biased, aggressive rhetoric. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking for POV-driven vandalism isn't covered by the Arbcom ruling. Blocking for "aggressive biased editing" is covered. As an experienced editor, she should not have made those edits. I'm simply trying to interpret the block on that article page in the context of the Arbcom ruling based on Sarah777's edits to that page in the cold light of a new day without drama. An indef block applied to the British Isles page based on Vandalism is more appropriate that invoking the Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course "POV-driven vandalism" is a form of "aggressive biased editing" – a particularly bad form, to be precise. So yes, I'm quite confident this is exactly within the letter and the spirit of the Arbcom rule. (And an "indef block applied to the British Isles page based on Vandalism" – by which I take it you are referring to a topic ban – wouldn't otherwise be feasible, because we can't in fact hand out topic bans without such Arbcom authorization.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be so pedantic about this. Would you mind if we ask for a review of this interpretation from Arbcom? Not sure of the exact procedure. --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't stop you from doing so, but yes, I sorta would mind, because I'd consider it a waste of time. The procedure should be outlined at WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification, if you must. But why would you even bother, given that there's also still the full indef-block in force, which renders the topic ban rather moot, for now? And why don't you just let Sarah take care of her own affairs? If she wants to raise an appeal, against whichever part of those sanctions, she can easily do so by herself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Not much point unless she wants to return to editing. --HighKing (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification

[46]Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't do WP:WQA. It's always been a useless page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfree file

• File:Torchwood Miracle Day Title.jpg

Hi! I was wondering what happens now? The file's been listed at PUF for ten days, when does it get deleted...? Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 15:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, somebody will get to it in due course. PUFs typically sit around a bit longer than FFDs, but they do get processed by admins in the end. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:James Tate Shelton High Prom Sign.jpg

Hi, can you tell me where I am supposed to comment on the proposed deletion of the image File:James Tate Shelton High Prom Sign.jpg ? I don't see any discussion. Are you the one who proposed the deletion, or are you acting as an admin informing me of such a proposal? Please respond on the talk page of the file in question. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed the tag myself, but I could also end up acting as an administrator in deleting it, because it's a speedy deletion process. If a substantial, policy-aware objection is raised, we could take it to a regular FFD instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, as I said on the file page, it is not the words themselves which were ever at issue, but the actual sign which was the occasion for all the hulabaloo, and without seeing the image (the act was described as trespass and a safety issue) readers have no evidence upon which to judge for themselves the spirit and severity of the incident. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Cailil ^talk 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert without participating ongoing discussion

Hi, I reported User:Melonbarmonster2 to WP:ANI#Revert without participating ongoing discussion. I would appreciate if you warn the user to participate in ongoing discussion at Talk:History of Korea#Japanese rule should be change to Colonial Korea. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 resumed a disruptive edit again.[47] See Talk:Japanese Sea Lion#User:Melonbarmonster2's disruptive edit. Please keep paying attention to the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What I am seeing is that you have both been edit-warring on several articles. Most importantly, you have both been editing the Japanese Sea Lion article although you both evidently have no interest in, or knowledge about, marine biology. You are both editing exclusively with a motive of misusing that article for a silly game of national point-scoring – adding stuff for the gratification of making representatives of one nation look bad, or removing stuff to avoid just that. If the conflict on that article escalates, you will most likely both end up blocked for national battleground conduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. However Melonbarmonster2 never participated in the discussion, only reverting the edit. If the user is not an established user, the user would be blocked from editing immediately. Please suggest how to deal with this kind of disruptive editor without participating the discussion. Your comment above only encourages the user's disruptive editing. Melonbarmonster2 probably will revert my edit without participating the discussion. Then I will revert it immediately. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been heavily involved in this article since it's beginning. I have also lived on the Atlantic Coast with a high interest if not passion on marine biology and environmental preservation. I have also visited islands off eastern and western coast of Korea. Phoenix's only participation on this page has been to revert my edits. Please check the history page to verify. Thanks. [48]Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Single-purpose account for naming

Hey, I am contacting you because I know you been involved in the Polish-Lithuanian naming disputes so you are familiar with the background story. I do not have the time to investigate/pursue this myself. I am not opposed to adding Polish names wherever it's reasonable (I find that whole debate exceedingly silly and I have no desire to get involved), but what I am opposed to is blatant sock puppetry & ban evasions. In short, the last couple of days I noticed a bunch of throw-away accounts on my watchlist that do nothing more than edit to add Polish names to Lithuanian articles. Here is the list of ones that popped up on my watchlist (I am sure there is more):

• Siusiumamusiu (talk · contribs)
• Logging23 (talk · contribs)
• Butyzcholewami (talk · contribs)
• Butifyouforgetmyson (talk · contribs)
• Wdzienlapanka (talk · contribs)
• Wnocynalot (talk · contribs)
• Pilkaszklanka (talk · contribs)
• Siekieramotyka (talk · contribs)
• Mirektutaj (talk · contribs)
• PolakzWlna (talk · contribs)
• could be related to Canadian IPs 24.84.209.134 and 209.121.225.252

Please do whatever you deem to be appropriate. Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with reverting

Here the Bulgarian users are reverting my referenced text with the picture and corrections because they obviously want the page to be bg POV. Can you please help regarding the situation in order not to break the 3 RR rule? Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

hey

Hi. In the past you have given me a topic ban regarding a dispute (the whole affair seems kinda embarrassing now that I look at it, to be honest), by which the punishment was a ban on "historical demographics and cartography of Ex-Yugoslavia." Would you consider removing the ban on historical demographics? That was never really the problem though - the problem was maps, not demographics in general. New census data is being released nowadays, and I would like to be able to add current and past census data for municipalities and settlements. This is what I have been doing in my early days on wikipedia, and nobody ever had a problem with this because there was nothing controversial about it. It was simply the census data, nothing to discuss, and so nobody ever discussed anything, they just let me work on that stuff. In fact, I got two barn stars thanks in part to my contributions. I think that the initial topic ban was a bit broad, but okay, so it happened and perhaps it may have actually been useful. But anyways, would you please allow me to return to adding demographic data on wikipedia pages by removing half the ban? (LAz17 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

?? (LAz17 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry for not answering earlier. I have to say I'm a bit skeptical, but okay, given it's been quite some time since this was imposed, we can give it a try. So, topic ban is loosened to the extent described by you above (see WP:ARBMAC for details); however, I expect you to keep out of controversy with these edits, tread very carefully if they become the object of contention, and continue keeping well out of the way of your old opponent Ceha. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Shaikh

Hello! I am mindingthequill. I don't know where to write you at. This is my first article. You can write me at mindingthequill@yahoo.com I would like the Mohammad Shaikh page back up. I had nothing to do with the former pages. Thank you kindly. Please e-mail me as soon as possible. I don't understand why editors don't assume good faith. ARGH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindingthequill (talk • contribs)

Hello!! This is mindingthequill for the Mohammad Shaikh page. The article is blocked now. Can you unblock it so I can recreate it? I was told I had to get you to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindingthequill (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but no. Please see my response to your request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, mindingthequill here! You did cause a lot of issues by deleting my Mohammad Shaikh page. Please put it back up for me and unblock it so that I can finish editing it. Thank you kindly. I am not hearing anything from you on this topic. Are you ignoring me? Please respond in kind. Thank you! You did the damage not please fix it ASAP! Thank you!

Please see my answer above. Why are you always posting up there in that unrelated section in the middle of this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear FPAS: The deletion Admin sent me to you again to allow me to keep the page up since you deleted it. Are you the one who deleted it? If so, why? I did not create the prior pages. Please restore it. Thank you.Mindingthequill (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Dear Sir, Admin told me to come back to you yo have the page put back up if it was going to be the same page you deleted. You are the deleter, who confessed to deleting by accident-in judgement error, correct? Please restore. Thank you kindly.Mindingthequill (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Dear Sir: I send you a note in your mail. I don't understand where to write you at. I am sorry.Mindingthequill (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't continue making this same request over and over again. I already answered it, several times. No, I did not delete the page by accident. Who told you that? And, please, don't post your messages in other unrelated sections of this page. Keep them here in this section. Also, please stop making repetitive requests over at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Your requests there have been declined already by several administrators. I also don't like it that you were making false claims about what I said here [49]. Where on earth did you get the idea that I "made a hasty judgment in deleting it and was sorry" and that I were "not going to edit until I learn the rules of Wikipedia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I requesting that the Mohammad Shaikh page be restored so that I am finish editing it and if an editor or editors would like to help me with it, this would be appreciated. I don't have a valid policy which does not allow me to have this page up on Wikipedia. Thank you kindly.Mindingthequill (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Man, do you ever read the pages you post to? This was the third or fourth time I've had to move a misplaced posting of yours from some random other thread on this page. Don't you see I answered you several times already? Please stop repeating yourself over and over again, and start listening to what people are telling you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead of the article on the Macedonian language

Hi Future, I disagree with the adjustments made in the introduction of this article for the following reasons:

According to the source there is attached (Studies in contact linguistics, G. Gilbert, Glenn G. Gilbert, Janet M. Fuller, Linda L. Thornburg, Peter Lang, 2006, ISBN 0820479349, 9780820479347,p. 213.) Macedonian language was standardized in 1945 and was codified in the period between 1945 and 1950. Now this is not described by that way in the article and some readers will be misled. Furthermore, other attached source (UCLA) indicates some Western linguists maintain that the Macedonian language is a Bulgarian dialect. The article now says that the recognizing of the Macedonian language is not supported by all the neighbors of the state. In the case, this issue is not about the neighbors, but about linguists. Please, correct these factual inaccuracies. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hellenic Motor Museum

Dear Future,

please check this page: Hellenic Motor Museum and the talk page. Some Arsenisp claims to be an official representative of the museum. Of course I have no problem to believe him but his edits are very "unencyclopedic", badly written and his text is taken directly from the museum leaflet. I reverted once his edits but he then reverted mine. In a couple of days I will time to expand the article. But after all, does he have the right to do so? Dimboukas (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Ba-Ni-Bi

Hi again. I'm sorry I forgot to add the source for the picture of A-Ba-Ni-Bi but it was my first time putting pictures onto wikipedia but please forgive me. Anyway I added the source on the comments or do I add it on somewhere else. Please get back to me. Kind regards User talk:Mrluke485 20:20 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, now you added a source link, but we still don't know what its copyright status is. We can only keep it if you can prove the copyright owner has released it under a free license. Or, alternatively, if you can make a case it is one of the exceptional instances where we keep an image as non-free content, but in that case you need to provide an explicit rationale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay the picture was uploaded by an account registers on Dream Chimney by the name of Prana Chimney. Now I don't have a Dream Chimney account but I could register for one and ask him for permission.

Kind regards User talk:Mrluke485 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that he probably doesn't own it either. It looks very much like a video screencap from TV. In which case it would still be owned by the TV station. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. But mind if I ask if I upload a photo from my camera onto wikipedia do I still need to put the source/licence in. Kind regards User talk:Mrluke485 09:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

T.M.I.

Hey, could you clarify what about this you think fails the NFCC that other screenshots in other episode articles don't? - filelakeshoe 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't even exist. It's a mere sub-stub, for an episode that hasn't even aired yet. Episode screenshot must only be used where they are needed to make a substantial, sourced, point of analytical commentary understood in the article. There is no blanket allowance of one random image per episode. An article that has no significant content can't possibly ever support a legitimate image. And even if and when the article is expanded, this image is so generic it is highly unlikely it will fulfill the criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

May I ask why you nominated File:Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti.jpg for deletion and under which specific WP:CSD clause? The nomination makes no sense, as the illustration depicts an obscure Somali scholar who was born in the 1700s; a free image of the gentleman therefore obviously cannot be found, as the subject was born well before and died only three years after the first photographic process was ever invented. If you disagree, would you be so kind as to point me to a free image I may upload in its place? Al-Ahram published two separate sketches of the gentleman some time back ([50], [51]); but they too, like all images of the man on the internet, are copyrighted. Further, Google image searches for the terms "Jabarti" and the alternate spelling "Gabarti" (his last name) turn up no images of the man other than the current illustration and the Al-Ahram sketches -- none of which are free-use. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course a new authentic portrait cannot be made. But the present image isn't an authentic portrait either. Supposing that it really is a modern artist's work, as your description implies, then it is apparently a purely imaginary portrait, i.e. merely the artist's impression. The artist had no more authentic knowledge about what the guy really looked like than you or I have. As such, the image is replaceable with any arbitrary drawing of a bearded man with a turban that you or I could create. Such a replacement would have exactly the same information value as this image: namely, precisely zero. (Incidentally, such a replacement could also easily reach a much higher artistic value; I don't know about you, but I could certainly draw something better than this.) – Of course, if the modern artist actually did have some actual knowledge of what the guy looked like, then it can only have been on the basis of some authentic contemporary portrait; if such exists, we can either find that original portrait and use it directly, or make our own sketch on that basis. In any case, we don't need this one. By the way, even if we did end up agreeing that this non-free image is justified for the person's article, it would have to be removed from the Somali people article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I imagine the illustration was based on some of the existing non-free portraits of the man (like the Al-Ahram sketches linked to above) as opposed to the creator's imagination. The question remains, though, what are the free alternatives you suggest exist? Please link me to them, and I will see to it that they are uploaded. Also, could you please link me to the non-free use clause explaining why the image cannot be used on the Somali people page? WP:NFCI indicates that "some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content" and that "images with iconic status or historical importance" (which this illustration would fall under) are among those acceptable uses provided that the images are used "as subjects of commentary" (which is the case on both pages that the illustration is featured on), where WP:IUP defines the "subject" as the subject of the image that is being uploaded. The illustration also does not breach any of WP:NFC#UUI's stated unacceptable uses. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say there actually is a replacement. I said one could be made. That's sufficient under WP:NFCC. You or I could make one. This image is also clearly not of "iconic status or historical importance". It's an anonymous, artistically worthless scribble. Or do you have some sources that discuss the importance of this particular drawing? It is also not "object of commentary". There isn't a single word of commentary on the image in either article. As for the Somali people page, it follows from the principle of minimality (WP:NFCC#3) that if we have a dedicated article on a person, a suitable non-free image might be used there (if all other criteria are met, which in this case they are not); however, it can't be used in a larger article where the person in question is only mentioned in passing or as part of a list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This image is of historical importance because it's a portrait of an important Islamic scholar, a scholar for which no free images appear to exist. Also, you may not have stated that there is a replacement for this image, but the deletion template you added to the page does. That's the main reason why this deletion tag makes no sense: there is no extant free-use alternative for this image. WP:NFCC#3 likewise refers to using multiple non-free items/pics (plural) on one article, not one single item of non-free content on the entire website; it therefore does not apply here either. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Read more closely please: both the tag and the actual criterion speak of alternatives that exist or could be created. They don't need to exist already. And you are mixing up the notion of "importance". The person may be historically important; the image is not. – About use in lists, believe me, it's standard practice to remove those; but in any case, it's not worth fighting over, because the image will be deleted for the other reason anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the template says [52]: "This file may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information". In theory, any file can be re-created. That's why the template includes the key term "adequately" because not all recreations are adequate representations of the subject they attempt to portray. You yourself have admitted that it is uncertain what the gentleman in question looked like. A Wikipedian-made recreation therefore by definition won't adequately capture his likeness. Also, can you please clarify what exactly is the other reason that you believe the image will be deleted for? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am getting a bit impatient with you now, so please forgive me if this is going to be my last post on the matter. The hypothetical replacement will be "adequate" because it will have exactly the same degree of encyclopedic value as this file, namely none. The replacement won't "adequately capture his likeness"; this file doesn't capture it either. This file is worthless; the replacement will be worthless; zero equals zero. My imagination of what that that person might have looked like is exactly as valid as our anonymous artist's imagination. – The "other reason" is just the one I've been talking about all along, the replaceability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if this discussion is annoying you; that was certainly not my intention. However, as I understand it, it is customary on this collaborative website to communicate with other editors when there are disagreements on matters. Hence, why you alerted me to the file deletion on my talk page, and I responded on yours. This file (made by an Egyptian btw; the subject was an Egyptian national) is certainly not any more useless than one created by a random Wikipedian would be. That said, this is not a point I'm going to press any further, as it's rather subjective. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You can go ahead and delete File:Hassan Abshir Farah.jpg, File:Abdiqassim Salad Hassan 1.jpg, File:Said Sheikh Samatar.jpg, File:Barre Adan Shire Hiiraale.jpg. Those are old files I uploaded years ago as a new user before I was aware of Wikipedia's non-free use criteria on living persons. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why gee em

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

If you'd prefer not deal with this issue, please let me know so I can contact another administrator. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Move over redirect

Hey,

can you please delete 2008 Georgia–Russia crisis for me, so I can move 2008–present Georgia–Russia crisis there? Check the history to see just how absurd the name has become. --Xeeron (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've cleaned out the edit history for you, so you should now be able to move it back there if you must. Just be sure to watch out for signs of any legitimate disagreement; in that case please do a proper move request. No opinion where the page should be – I agree the present title is grammatically inadequate, but I could imagine there might still be preferences other than the first title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I need an opinion

I have a book, "Caucasus and an unholy alliance", edited, partially written and published by Antero Leitzinger. What are the restrictions on a self-published book that contains chapters written by others? Specifically, can anything within this book be used on wikipedia? I would appreciate your insight into this and it will also assist in the discussion on Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vinie

Vinie is one of the users responsible for the maintenance edits that are necessary on WPSQ, but not many people volunteer for that task, so having him blocked every few weeks for copyright violations etc. slows down the project. Can't you just sanction him by making it obligatory for him to ask for upload permission every time he wants to upload another file?.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was the first time for him to get blocked unless I'm mistaken, so let's perhaps not over-dramatize things. What Vinie needs to do is to make a serious effort at understanding copyright policy. Currently I am getting the impression he doesn't understand copyright because he doesn't want to understand it, because he sees it as an annoying hindrance in getting as many images uploaded as he can. He can't really be that dense that he couldn't wrap his head around it if he wanted to. His latest trick, the one Ronhjones pointed out on his talkpage, where he was pointing to a political party's party programme as an alleged document of copyright release (for an image that wasn't even contained in that publication), and his reactions to all prior cases where his copyright claims were challenged, lead me to the conclusion he is simply refusing to take the issue seriously. If he isn't prepared to change his attitude, he needs to not just promise he'll ask first (because that would place an undue burden of work on those people that will have to answer in each case); he'll just need to stop touching images, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File talk:Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti.jpg

I'm sorry you were surprised by my decision; it is based on my long-held dissatisfaction over the emphasis on free source images, & how various Wikipedians do not understand there must be exceptions in order to achieve our more important goal of being a free reference work on general knowledge. In this case, I explained my dissatisfaction quite succinctly -- for once. As I wrote, there is no way for a Wikipedian to create a better image than the one Middayexpress found because to do so "would be the product of original research, it is not possible for just any Wikipedian to create an image of Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti, no matter how much effort she/he exerted."

Based on your argument that if any fair use image can be replaced by one with a free license, then the logical end result would be to delete any & all fair use images of any person because they could be replaced with this or that image. But if you don't accept this objection, then consider this: can you guarantee that a replacement image for Middayexpress's can be created, without violating the "no original research" rule? Can you explain how this could be done? If so, I will reverse my decision. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it to FFD in the meantime, so discussing it here is a bit moot. But: (1) the "original research" objection doesn't count, because there is no anti-OR rule for images. Images that are original creative work by Wikipedians are in fact legitimate (WP:OI). So, yes, a replacement could be made: I could simply draw a random picture of a bearded guy of vaguely middle eastern looks, wearing a turban. There would be no content-related problematic "OR" involved, because this image would come with no more of an implicit factual assertion that these were really his authentic features than does with this one. My imagination is as good as our anonymous artist's (that is: the one is exactly as worthless as the other, and no reader in their right mind would ever understand the image to make a factual claim about authenticity). (2) "Based on your argument that if any fair use image can be replaced by one with a free license, then the logical end result would be to delete any & all fair use images of any person" – your sentence is grammatically incoherent and therefore unclear about which parts of it you think are actually my opinion. I most certainly didn't say this would make all non-free images replaceable. Where we have images such as authentic portraits or authentic photographs that convey an actual, true impression of a person's features, the authentic images of course win out, and a replacement drawn after one of them would likely and up counting as a derivative work. (Although, we do have a few cases where talented Wikipedians have actually synthesized their own, non-derivative portrait painting from several older photographs, and we use their free painting instead of the photograph.) But the case I'm talking about here is one where there simply is no authentic information to be used. The artist couldn't possibly have had any more knowledge of what the guy actually looked like than you or I have. The image is objectvively worthless anyway; that means the threshold of making something of equivalent or higher value is exceptionally low. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Pennwic's image uploads

I spot-checked, and they're actually taken from the Weigle Information Commons's own website. So "copyvio even if source were listed". Also likely role account, or at least COI for it (the WIC facility at UPenn)? I'm sorta-involved. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, likely. There's an upside and a downside to it though: the more they have of a COI, the higher the likelihood that they actually are entitled to release the images. Is the article editing problematic? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem as long as it gets resolved one way or another--I'm fine with neutral contributions from anyone and with a few officially-released images. However, the whole page reeks of being from someone who's "too close" to write an actual encyclopedia article. I sent it to afd, so that too will get resolved soon enough. DMacks (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Upload

Could i upload the three files on page 16-17? It's for the Massacre of Cërrik. Please message me on my talkpage --Vinie007 07:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What about this under a non free licence. It shows clear the reaction against the killing and the temorary take over by democrats --Vinie007 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What about this an historic event of fall of communism --Vinie007 07:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• None of these images seem to me to be making a crucial contribution to understanding the event, in a way that couldn't be covered through text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ansiklopedika.org

I noticed you were actively editing admin at Special:Log/delete. Would you clean up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansiklopedika.org? The previous AfD has been incorrectly moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ansiklopedika.org/Archive1. Ansiklopedika.org is also tagged for deletion for multiple reasons, among them {{db-repost}}. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinion and intervention

Please I need your opinion and intervention here. Regards Aigest (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

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

╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Boniface image

Hi Future--I do hope to get permission from Fulda, and when I do (it won't happen soon, I imagine) I will bolster up the case a bit by adding some information about the special relation between John Paul II and Fulda (he visited there while still a cardinal, in 1978). Did you know he was a recipient of one of three facsimiles of the Ragyndrudis Codex? (Oh, I still need to write that.) BTW, the new pope (that sounds silly, and I'm betraying my age) is visiting Germany soon, but Fulda is not on the list, though Erfurt is. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding that AN/I post

Before painting everyone with the same brush, I would recommend this time actually taking a long hard look at the fellow who is the subject of the report, especially this little episode [53] [54] [55], particularly with this [56] in mind. I mean, really now. As far as I can tell, Alexikoua hasn't been edit-warring or tag teaming at all, in contrast to SIYKB who has been all over the place. These articles were quiet as graveyards, as well they should be, until SIYKB came in there guns blazing to "even the score" [57] (incidentally no one was "expanding" the Greek genocide article). I think you will agree that this kind of attitude is the last thing we need around here. Athenean (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Btw, would you be so kind as to nominate this nonsense [58] for deletion? For whatever reason I can't seem to be able to do it through Twinkle. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's on Commons; you can nominate it there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Athenean (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding single purpose accounts/IPS

It is became tiresome to follow up mess created by single purpose accounts [59] [60], [61]. Perhaps you will look into it. M.K. (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: File:Carnival Magic.jpg

For how long have you been stalking my edits? You present statements that are very good rationales for discussed deletions but not at all valid reasons for speedy deletions, and there's no way that you could have found these images without tracking me. You talk about it being bad form: what would you say if someone reverted your admin actions and deleted images that had already been declined? I am tired of you reviewing all of my file deletions; I am not some newbie that knows nothing of the way things are supposed to be done here. By the way, before you block me for reverting out of process deletions, read this page. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your time zone is, but here it's past my bedtime. I'll respond to you later. By the way, you've still not answered my first question. Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the very long delay; today was a busy day in real life. Since you're stalking my edits, even to non-files such as the Mecca massacre, you'll note that I've not been around all day, and I can assure you that I've done nothing on any other wiki either. I'll first respond to those four images that you mentioned: (1) Ramlee — he died less than 40 years ago. It's possible that the uploader took a photo of the guy and scanned it decades later for upload here. (2) Necimiento — I don't see why this has to be a record cover. Your statement is a very good rationale for a deletion discussion or PUF, but not the essentially-impossible-to-be-wrong that we require for a copyvio deletion. (3) Solution — before your comment on my talk page, I had no way to know what it was; if the uploader or someone else had pointed me to the other image, it would have been a clear case, but because there was no context, I couldn't know that it wasn't possibly self-created. Thanks to your comment, I'll delete it as soon as I save this comment to your talk page. (4) Solange — neither the image nor the rest of the file page has anything requiring it to be an album cover, and I don't see where you find evidence that it was previously deleted and reuploaded. If it had been in use, I would have checked to see the page; if I remember rightly, I deleted at least one such image yesterday that didn't talk about being an album cover but was used as such in an article. It's possible for someone to have taken a photograph of this person and then added the words with a photo editing program. Now to the rest of your comment. First, "If you feel the cases are not obvious enough..." That's exactly what I do in such cases. The fact is that none of these images you cite are such cases: they are obviously not candidates for deletion under the cited criteria, because an image with a clear claim of being created by the uploader has a source, and the no-evidence-of-permission template requires that the image be sourced to someone other than the uploader. Our no-source template is not a disputed-source template. Any image with a statement that it was uploaded by the creator is ineligible for deletion for these reasons; however, you've surely seen that I've deleted plenty of images in the last few days that were wrongly tagged as no-source or no-evidence-of-permission because they were blatant copyvios. Regarding the overall process: it's not my fault that someone tries to get an image deleted for an inapplicable reason. I have no more reason to work for the deletion of an image that was wrongly tagged than I do any other kind of page that was wrongly tagged: unless I believe that a page of any type deserves deletion, I will not attempt to have it deleted. Occasionally I'll come across an image that doesn't deserve deletion on the cited grounds but deserves it on others; in such cases, I'll tag the image if I think of it. I always watch pages that I've placed into any sort of deletion process, and my decline of a speedy deletion tag of any sort on any kind of page always includes my reason for declining and an explanation of why the speedy deletion was inappropriate, so that the taggers can note it when they check their watchlists or their own contributions. Going on, kindly observe one of the first parts of WP:CSD — "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". If I believe that a page is not suited for speedy deletion, I will actively seek to prevent its deletion in that situation, just like anyone else should. Please make more use of deletion discussions, as you have with many of these images; I may disagree with your rationales, but I won't complain about the fact that you use FFD or PUF for images that you believe should be deleted. You've probably observed that I've supported one of your recent FFDs, saying basically that your rationale for deletion was not sufficient for speedy but was good for regular deletion. Finally, I eagerly await your answer to my question; my apologies if this response is a TL/DR situation, but I wanted to give a sufficient response to everything that you've said. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We evidently disagree about one general, crucial point of administrative best practice, about at least two CSDs, and about a procedural issue regarding my intervention in these particular cases. About the first: You say "I have no more reason to work for the deletion of an image that was wrongly tagged than I do any other kind of page". In copyvio matters, such a stance is irresponsible. Copyvio cleanup is a privileged matter, and in the shared responsibility of all editors and especially all admins. If a a good-faith contributor has reasonably identified a likely or near-certain copyvio issue, but used a speedy deletion tag in a case that you believe falls just short of the formal criteria – let's say a "no source" tag on an obviously dubious "self"-marked file — you cannot just let it sit and throw the tagger back to square one and pretend it's none of your business. It is your duty to help the process along and make sure the case gets the right form of scrutiny. If you don't find it obvious enough for an F9, best practice is for you to forward it to FFD yourself. If you don't have the time for that, just leave it aside and let others deal with it.

I also disagree about the notion that the presence of a "self-" tag automatically precludes an F4/F9 speedy in the absence of a specific identified copyvio source. I take it that you believe that in the presence of any type of "self" claim, even an obviously dubious one, F4 is excluded, and F9 comes into play only when a specific copyvio source is identified. But F9 doesn't demand this. There are more than one ways in which a copyvio can be "obvious". The type of case where the tagger can point to a specific source is only one of them. If an uploader already has a proven history of bad "self" claims, and there is objective evidence that the "self" claim is implausible (for instance because it's a type of image that normally gets released only through non-free channels, or because it's a very low resolution version of an image whose owner could be expected to have access to a high-resolution original from a digital camera, or because it's taken from a privileged position to which only few accredited photographs can be expected to have had access), and if the uploader has then failed to give a meaningful explanation of how he created it and how it could be his own work in the face of this implausibility, then the dubiousness may in fact reach the level of "obviousness" required for an F9. In this way, even a formally "incorrect" F4 tag (i.e. a "no source" tag placed on a "self"-tagged file) can provide the basis for a valid F9 speedy.

We also disagree about the "no permission" thing. The wording on that tag was recently clarified (following one of our first disagreements), to be in line with the actual CSD wording. The CSD says: "Such a confirmation is also required if the source is an organization that the uploader claims to represent, or a web publication that the uploader claims to be their own". This means that if there are both a "self" tag and an external source link, this logically amounts to a claim that the external source belongs to the uploader, and the uploader may therefore be asked to provide the usual proof (OTRS etc). This is part of what the "di-no permission" is meant to cover, and always has been. I should know, because I was involved in writing it; see original draft here: "the uploader has identified a previously self-published source as the source of the image (eg. a private website)". Thus, a "self" tag also doesn't preclude application of F11.

About the procedural thing: my speedy deletions, where they followed your de-tagging of a file, were not "overriding" your admin decision. Wherever I simply disagreed with your assessment of a CSD claim that you declined, on the basis of the same information available to both of us, I didn't do a speedy but took it to FFD. If I did a speedy, it was on the basis of new evidence, thus constituting an entirely new speedy deletion process independent of yours. Just because you have found that a given CSD criterion wasn't fulfilled on the basis of the knowledge you had about it at time X, doesn't mean I can't do a speedy based on some other CSD and some additional knowledge I have at time Y. In each of the cases you restored recently, I was acting on the basis of such new information gained through my own investigations. You say, for instance, that you didn't know that the uploader of File:Solange Knowles - In My Heart.JPG had claimed it was an album cover. I don't blame you for not knowing this. But the fact is, when I made my speedy deletion call, I knew. (And you could have known too if you'd looked harder; the evidence is in the deleted history of the In My Heart article.) In such a case, you should not continue to treat the deletion case as "your" decision and insist on having it treated your way. You are dealing with my deletion, and whether or not it was justified is a matter of my discretion and responsibility. If you don't see the justification for my speedy, you can ask me, you can take it to DRV, you can demand my desysoping for overly liberal use of F9; but what you can't do is simply revert me without consultation; that's wheel-warring.

About your initial question: I think I first became aware of you in late February, when we disagreed first about File:Rosebud Benitez 3.jpg and then about File:Ricardo Rossello.jpg. I don't think I ever noticed you before that. I don't remember when I began to monitor your detaggings more regularly, but I've done so for the last few weeks. You also ask, "what would you say if someone [...] deleted images that had already been declined?" The answer is: not much. I don't actually tend to regard de-taggings as formal admin actions. They are not the outcome of a formal decision-making process such as an XfD and are not supposed to have a precedent-setting, binding force affecting what subsequent admins can do, in the manner XfD closings have. Of course, a speedy deletion is an admin action. But a de-tagging is simply a documentation of having done nothing. Doing nothing isn't an action, it's a non-action. You can't override somebody's not doing something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)