User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 24

False remarks made about me

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 Section entitled: Reliable sources, not the "truth" editor User:La goutte de pluie who apparently signs as elle vécut heureuse à jamais has created a paragraph which is completely false about me. I have looked and cannot find where I have ever engaged with this editor. The paragraph is all by itself and does not seem to be formatted correctly for a noticeboard. Further, another editor has also asked to clarify her remarks. Since I see she has been warned by you in the past on her talk page and Administrator User:Off2riorob and a comment has been made to her there by User:Jimbo Wales, I am not understanding what exactly her agenda is. I am a member of Wikipedia in good standing and have never been blocked. Would you please advise me or take whatever action you think appropriate? This does not seem to be an isolated incident. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That noticeboard thread indeed seems strange. La goutte has recently been in some trouble over actions of her that were perceived as biased, and she has certainly been under some stress, but she is an experienced and normally quite articulate editor and this apparently unsubstantiated complaint doesn't really look like her. I can only surmise that perhaps she meant to refer to something you were doing at the Caylee Anthony debate, but it's strange she didn't give any more concrete information. Have you considered asking her what she meant? You could request she should either retract that report or substantiate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had cancer three times and I think I know what stress is This is something else altogether, as well as her other remarks to other editors which warranted warnings. As I said before, she has not ever edited on the same article with me as far as I can see. I have been on a noticeboard which is archived but I do not see where she has edited there. If you do not feel the false insults warrant anymore of your attention here I can go elsewhere, if you would be so good as to tell me. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have asked her on her talkpage. She hasn't been online yet today, it seems, so let's wait and see, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she lost power in the hurricane. I will wait. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

She has been on line yesterday but has still not replied, unless by e-mail. Mugginsx (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, she has been online today as well as yesterday - today at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/La_goutte_de_pluie 14:43, 31 August 2011 (diff | hist) m City Harvest Church ‎ (→Views on wealth, freedom and success) (top) 14:24, 31 August 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie ‎ (→response to Jimbo Wales: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) (top) Should I bring my comments to the RFC there or would that be improper? Mugginsx (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Partition of Macedonia

I thought this might be of interest to you. Let's say it's not a copyvio, but the single "source" is a self-published propaganda site. Also note what redirects there: Macedonia land and Macedonia stolen land. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera Documents From The National Archives

Um I have no idea why you are so insistent that this isn't a public domain document but I assure you it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_03_11_devalera.pdf

And rather than just delete it you could have given me the time to amend the detailsTwobells (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw that PDF. How does that PDF prove it's in the public domain? It doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything the BBC releases on it's website is in the public domain, the BBC is one of the most highly reputable citing sources for wikipedia, I just don't understand the problem, the BBC is used throughout Wikipedia s a citing source, why should it be any different for this entry?

Being in the public domain has nothing to do with reliability. Yes, the BBC is usually a reliable source, and yes, you can cite it. No, the BBC does not release its contents into the public domain, it retains copyright on what it publishes, so no, you can't pinch images from it. And even if the BBC wanted to release this document into the public domain, it couldn't, because it doesn't own it. It's presumably owned by the government, and they have not released it into the public domain, as you yourself demonstrated below. Are you sure you know what "public domain" means? Please look it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me I don't know wikipedia that well when it comes to images. Are you British by any chance? If you were you would know that any document released by the National Archives Office before 1950 is PD, best wishes.Twobells (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But apparently it wasn't realeased before 1950. It was released and published only a few days ago, from what I gather. BTW, no, I'm not British. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the BBC article it was from March 28th 2011, here is the actual terms of the licence, perhaps you might know better under which tag it sits?

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/. I think it is interpreted at Wiki as PD....Twobells (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Presuming you are right and it actually is released under those conditions (I'm not quite sure about that, because I haven't seen the document on the Archive's own pages, but let's assume it is), then this is a "non-commercial only" license, which, to Wikipedia, counts as non-free. Which means you could only use it under the WP:NFCC. Which, in this case, is excluded, because showing the image can very easily be replaced with simply quoting the word, and citing them to a reliable source. Moreover, there is currently apparently no consensus even for including the basic story in the article, so, a foriori, there is no consensus for having a non-free image to go with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one would respond to my requests for the lay out of the story, it belongs in his biography as it has huge implications in how he is seen publicly.

update, I have obtained my own copy of the complete records with authority to distribute, do I assert myself as author?Twobells (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. Whatever the release status of that document, you are not its author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So which tag do I use? The reason I ask is certain republican editors are suggesting it isn't 1: real, 2: fringe, 3: copyright, all at the same time :-) Twobells (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I see now, you don't use any tag; you don't upload it. And one more thing: if you are using an image in order to prove that something is real, you are doing something wrong. Always. We don't use images to prove stuff. We use reliable sources. For the third time: if this passage is important for the article, simply quote it from a reliable source (and, more importantly, cite a reliable source regarding its meaning and significance.) Free or non-free, your image is worthless for what you are trying to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favour and please don't try and lecture me on what signifies a reliable source, the source I was citing was reliable, I was trying to use the image as any image is used on wikipedia no more no less, an image pertaining to the subject along with the textual content. As for obtaining the records I wanted to put them in the public domain and cite from there as certain editors were questioning their validity even though they are freely available on various highly regarded websites and broadcasters.Twobells (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't listen to a word I said. If you have a reliable source for what the document says, then go ahead and cite it, that's what I've been telling you all along. (The question of whether the BBC article is a reliable source for this type of historical judgment is a different issue and has to be clarified on article talk; I'm not commenting on that here.). But that has nothing to do with the copyright status of the image. And what on earth do you mean by saying you want to put the document into the public domain? You can't possibly do that if you are not the owner. You can't release rights to a document that you don't own in the first place. And what on earth did you mean by saying you "obtained your own copy with authority to distribute"? From whom? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we are both getting confused here, are you saying that the National Archives are NOT a reliable source? Also please read the NA licence agreement, once I purchase the licence I am free to place the document in the public domain.Twobells (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

You still haven't looked up what "public domain" means, have you? "Placing something in the public domain" is not the same thing as "publishing something". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to editorial guidelines at the BBC and they said that any article on their website is to be considered by third party websites as public domain, anyway this all looks irrelevant atm as some editors are disputing it's need to be added and are citing fringe.Twobells (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Filed an amendment about the EEML interaction bans

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys, where I have quoted your opinion (given above) about the pros an cons of interaction bans. You can add your own statement if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein

commons:Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Sockpuppets_of_Amir.Hossein.7055. One file uploaded by Commons:User:2011amal tagged by you yesterday. This terrible person takes it to extremes, see his newly blacklisted flickrwashing account. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, regarding your edits on my user page, I want it there, it's MY user page, and it's very interesting, but you wouldn't like it, I got rid of my political views, you should at least let me keep that info there, I am not being a racists, and with that article I e-mailed the author and here let me use it, same with the article about Partition of Macedonia I e-mailed the author aand he let me use it, I don't know what you're whinging about Alexander the Great (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well...

Well I'd prefer to shout it out, is this ok with you. oh and by the way you got rid of my pictures in the gallery, could you restore them? Alexander the Great (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry wasnt mine my friend gave it to me.. btw you should look at User:DeathToEnemies user page... the word in macedonian means... weel i wont say Alexander the Great (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Final warning

This [1] was a pretty blatant act of source falsification. Please explain why I shouldn't block you for POV vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Source falsification? what on earth are you on about? The ECHR is a highly considered legitimate source and they ruled in favour of the SAS, someone had vandalised the ruling to read otherwise I just set it straight.Twobells (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Check the source. [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, it was laid out in a very confusing manner, and seems to rule in favour and against both thanks.10:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

More nationalistic problems

User:Paweł5586, a user with a well-established pattern of nationalistic battlegrounding seems to be at it again. He has been blocked in the past for such behavior and ought to know better. Claiming to add a source, he removed infromation and another source here. The information he removed has been readded here: [3]. Here he removed the word "Ukrainian" from an article: [4]. He had been off wiki for awhile and this sort of stuff seems to be his main contribution. Could you give a stern warning at least? Thank you!Faustian (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing the remark here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 by User:La goutte de pluie as unsubstantiated Mugginsx (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, about the changes in the Wedlock page

Hello!

I see your edit with this comment: Media: rem gallery of non-free videos. Can't use non-free media like this.) Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedlock_(band)

Can you please point me out to somewhere explaining how to do it correctly? Also, I am not sure if this is the right way to leave a message. Please guide me to the correct way if it applies.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwedlock (talk • contribs)

Hello, thanks for asking, and yes, this is the right way of leaving a message (except that you should also sign your posting, by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end; this will expand to your name and datestamp). About the images, the rules about this kind of image use are set down at Wikipedia:Non-free content. That's a long and complicated page, but the short version is that media that aren't released under a fully free license can be used only where absolutely necessary. In practice, in a case like this, this would mean that each image or clip is being used to support explicit critical discussion in the article that wouldn't be understood without the illustration. It is not legitimate to use such items simply as an uncommented gallery. Please also see what you wrote in that (boilerplate) "rationale" you added: "The video is used against critical commentary of the performance, and provides a visual enhancement to the reader". This is obviously not really the case here. If it were the case, it would also be necessary to state this not in such general terms, but actually name what points of analysis and commentary are supported by it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response.I have now edited the media section again, adding a couple of ogg files. I have modelled the format I see in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visage Please let me know if I am doing this correctly or there is something to be changed. Thanks! Forwedlock (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not really an improvement. You still have a mere gallery with random soundbites without any commentary. Also, your fair use rationales are again wrong: at File:Cuts Both Ways.ogg, the rationale is for the wrong article, and it contains the claim that "[t]he section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style". Well, it just isn't. Please don't rely on canned boilerplate rationales. You need to write rationales that individually describe what you are actually doing with this file. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I have edited the page and one the samples again based in your advise. Do you think that ogg can now stay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedlock_(band) Thanks for your feedback! Forwedlock (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well...

I had a look at User:A_Macedonian I find it offensive about the Macedonia part, and the whole thing, it is exacly like mine except from the Greek point of view, why dont you delete the info from HIS user page? It will be unfair if you didn't... Alexander the Great (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like his page either, but I've had too many content disagreements with him personally for me to take action here myself. If you find it important enough, please ask at WP:ANI. Also bear in mind that, unlike you and your friend below, this guy is in fact a serious editor who has made some actual contributions to this project, so he'll probably be given a bit more leeway about his page than you. Why don't you also concentrate on first making some actual positive contribution to this project before you go about complaining about others? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

UMMMM....

You did not have to remove all of my user page except the intro. All you had to remove is PITCHKAMAICHINA GREEK BASTARDS! OK do you understand. And it is my own account so i can put whatever i want on it. If It was an atricle i would understand, BUT IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE it is a user page. So plz do not remove anything. I undid you edit, but don't worry i removed PITCHKAMAICHINA GREEK BASTARDS! I don't even now what it means. You Fong Pai, di lai lo mo. OK go type that on google translater.

Thankyou for you understanding DeathToEnemies (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Saying offensive words in Cantonese isn't really going to make your point, you know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, he didn't even spell the anglicised cantonese words correctly. --Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the material you had there were copyright violations. And no, even apart from that, you can't have just anything you like on your user page, please see WP:UP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture Copyright Issue

Hi. A picture I recently uploaded, you took down for "unambiguous copyright violation". Copyright violation? It was up for grabs on the net. I could have found one almost just like it on a hundred million different websites with a simple Goggle search. If that is copyright violation, what isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom887 (talk • contribs)

(This is about File:Bluestar Class Scout Ship.jpg.) Things on the net aren't "up for grabs", they are copyrighted. Just because many people elsewhere on the internet think they can grab stuff like that, doesn't mean we do the same on Wikipedia. It would only not be a copyright violation if you could prove that the author has explicitly released it under a free license. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy for more. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

More: in this particular case, there might be a case for using it under fair use (see WP:non-free content), because it will used for a page about a copyrighted element of fiction. However, for that to become an issue the article will first have to be ready and in mainspace, because we don't use non-free images in user space; and for that to happen, you'd first have to demonstrate that the topic is in fact suitable for an article. From what I can see in your userspace draft, it's a purely "in-universe" description of the fictional item, without any real-world coverage in independent sources and any signs of independent notability, so it might end up never suitable for an actual article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bleh... Yeah, alright I'll attempt to find an express-permission photo. I have a question, though. If the author gave me personal permission, say through an email, how would I show that I have permission to use it?

And as for the in-universe article bit, I just started the article yesterday (9-4-11) so its not even really begun yet.

If the permission can't be shown online (e.g. on the author's own website), it is best to forward the permission e-mail to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". Please note that it needs to be a fully free license, i.e. for use not merely by us on Wikipedia, but for free re-use everywhere else and for any purpose. Also, keep in mind that in the case of a TV/fiction element like this, the only party entitled to grant such a license is the original copyright-holding company who owns the TV series (not, for instance, the owner of the website you found the image on). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I kinda jumped into this without knowing a whole lot. One more question, though. About this in-universe bit this time. I guess I really don't know exactly what you mean by "in-universe". At first I thought you just meant describing only the attributes of the ship within the fictional universe, with no correlation or relevance to the outside world. What, then, makes this article: Victory class destroyer Not completely in-universe?Phantom887 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, in fact. I think you understood my point quite well. Victory class destroyer gives you a perfect example of what an article about a fictional element should not be. It's a terrible article and should not exist. It's very regrettable that such articles occasionally slip through and then serve as models to unsuspecting newcomers like you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, just saw the AfD ... in the lead of that article links to three more articles written in the same in-universe style, none with references to real-world notability that I can see. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wanna nominate a few more? There's more of them listed in the navbox at the bottom. Very few of those seem to be of any value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominate for what? Deletion or editing and revisions? And would you have any suggestions on what to include in my article so the article isn't so in-universe? Perhaps an "Appearances" section?Phantom887 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by "nominate" I meant "for deletion" (as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, aka "AfD"), which is what I did to two of these articles. For a better model, you might try Omega class destroyer; that one looks far better than the others from the series I've looked at. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good example. I'll try to stay true to it's methods rather than the others'. Phantom887 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI Request

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I should throw in I don't want this to get ugly, cause further disruption, or be blocked for making the ANI request. I just want someone to review what you did because I don't think what you did was right. No hard feelings and back to editing then. Best. -OberRanks (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG

Stop deleting my user page!!! There is no such thing as copy right violation on a userpage for god's sake!!! And it's from wiki not other sights. Even if it was why hadn't it gotten deleted before. HA? Tell me. I undid the swear words from my page. Just cause i support maso's more then greeks doesn't mean you have to constantly have to delete user page!!! If anyone else is having issues with him report him. This is the second time and one more time and i will report you. Even if you are a admin you cannot delete my user page which i spent 2 weeks on, which is copied but there is no such thing as copyright violation on userpage's!!!

Macedoniarulez is also having issues with you and i wonder how many other people have issues with you! I will tell you again there is no such thing as copyright violation on userpage's if there was it would of been rated as a speedy deletion from an admin which has a tool from wikipedia. My userpage would've been deleted age's ago. If you try speedy deletion i will report you evne if you don't i will still report you. If you report me i will backslash and report you. If someone reports me on your behalf i will report you. If you delete my userpage in any other way i will report you. Whatever you do to me against my wishes i will report you. If you do not understand what i have written i will report you for being a uncapable administrator on wikipedia who enjoy's deleting people's userpage!!!

I WILL REPORT YOU DeathToEnemies (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

             He's right you know, look at User:A_Macedonian copyright violstion and nonsense        information, why don't you delete his page!!

DeathToEnemies, this has already been linked to you, but as you seem not to have read it, read it, already. Your notion that copyright does not apply in the userspace is just wrong, and that's the end of it. And if you were to report FutPerf for this, it would likely just come back to bite you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please unblock my friend, User:DeathToEnemies as he did not understand that copyright violation and I will explain it to him. I will also talk to him so he won't upload copyrighted material. PLEASE SEE AND LISTEN TO THIS APPEAL!! Alexander the Great (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Once DeathToEnemies understands that, then we can consider unblocking; until then, he's going to remain blocked. –MuZemike 02:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Angie Goff Images

Instead of swinging by and giving me some template that tells me nothing, how about telling me what is wrong with the images and let me fix it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They are replaceable. Heavens, you are an experienced wikipedian with a ton of previous non-free image uploads; you are supposed to be able to read the criteria without me holding your hands. She's a living person, so new free photographs of her can be created. There's nothing to fix. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable with what? An image just like it? Cause I am sure I put "no" in the "replaceable" field when I uploaded them, meaning they were not replaceable. Perhaps you missed that when you just CSD'd away. Yeah, new photos can be created, probably will, but until then, we use what is available, else we just have alot of bland, pictureless pages for living people and a whole bunch of pictures of dead people. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the rules again. The policy is very explicit about it that we don't just "use what is available" until free alternatives are created. If it is possible in principle that they can be created, using a non-free item now is out. Since you have now acknowledged that "new photos can be created, probably will", the case is closed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the case is closed because someone, somewhere in the future might take a picture. You are putting a lot of trust in something that may or may not happen. This person might drop off the face of the Earth tomorrow morning, we don't know. We could technically say, these are the most up-to-date photos of her and be correct until the next one is taken. I think you are breaking WP:CRYSTAL in your assumptions that a photo might be taken in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the policy. If you don't like the policy, please go complain about it someplace else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, how about I do this. How about I report you for misuse of admin tools? How about that? You can't nom an image for deletion and then delete it yourself. Put 'em back and let an uninvolved admin decide what to do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can. I said they were replaceable, you acknowledged they were repalceable, case was obvious. Go ahead and report me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. I said they weren't replaceable on the image information when I uploaded them. So....either you can't read or you have a "death wish" and want to lose your tools. I'm not sure which at this point. This is easily fixed, put them back and let an uninvolved admin deal with this, because sir, you are not uninvolved and are not in the right. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

As required by the big gold box on ANI, I am notifying you that I have taken the above issue to ANI, which you can find here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Images of Nokia 500, 600, 700 and 701

I do not understand why you deleted my uplouded files AGAIN, since list time I thaught I uplouded them with the right license and they were taken from the righ place! I took the images from here ( [5] ), and I took the example from File:Nokia_C6-01.jpg. It is a file that has been staying there a long time ago...? KrisBogdanov (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted them because they failed the non-free content policy. They are easily replaceable with a self-made free photograph that somebody could create. You yourself acknowledged that this was possible. According to our policy, that makes deletion mandatory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've deleted File:Nokia_C6-01.jpg on the same grounds. It's regrettable you were misled by this bad example; that file should never have survived that long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's my mistake, that I copied the info and said they were replaceable, they’re not yet replaceable, since the devices aren't yet released!

Are you sure it is right deleting them? Who cares if they are replaceable or not since in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload there is a "It is a promotional photo from an advertisement, press kit, or similar source" listed option AND the images are part from a press release ( http://press.nokia.com/media/ )they are there just for that - to be used without permission! I'm I missing some Wikipedia rules, or did someone change them? KrisBogdanov (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no you didn't say they hadn't been released yet. But then again, if they haven't been released yet, there is really nothing much to say about them, is there? The articles are one-sentence stubs. Why would we need an image of a phone now if there's basically no article for it to support? It's not like the design is revolutionary and there is a lot of crucial sourced discussion about it that would be so badly in need of illustration, is there? Remember that there is no general entitlement for an image just because there is an article; it has to actually fulfill some purpose. And why go to the trouble of uploading a non-free image now, when it will have to be deleted again in just a few weeks anyway (i.e., the very day the thing becomes available in retail)? – About the general rules about promotional photographs, yes, I'm afraid you are missing some Wikipedia rules indeed, namely, WP:NFC#1. Yes, we do care if they are replaceable or not; even promotional images have to pass that threshold. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I suggest deleting (almost) all of the images of Nokia phones, and of all the other brands... "It's not like the design is revolutionary", or anything REVOLUTIONARY at all in the MOST of the devices... It would be a future perfect by sunrise, if they're all gone, wouldn't it? KrisBogdanov (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you do this kind of thing

Hey, since you are in the image deletion business, I could use your help getting rid of these old pictures from my original user page.

• File:HughesAwards.jpg
• File:HusnockAwards.jpg
• File:HusRibbons2006.JPG

No need for these to be on Wikipedia and one of them contains a hint at some personal info. Thanks for your help and glad to put that other business behind us. -OberRanks (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted two, but the third is already on Commons; you'll have to request deletion there. While you're here, did you get the licensing for File:1stuniforms.jpg clarified? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I e-mailed the original person at the National Archives who gave me the image some eight months ago. NARA is coming out of a three day holiday weekend which is probably why I haven't heard back yet. Will let you know the minute I receive word. If rules require that image go down until its resolved, no problem here. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You said yesterday you had already sent information "to Wikipedia" (I suppose you meant OTRS) as well as to another admin. Could I have the OTRS ticket and the name of the admin? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That was all done off-Wikipedia using personal e-mail addresses, so I don't think I did this the right way. Probably best to just start over and use the e-mail address you gave in the tag. I suspect we should get an answer within 24 hours. -OberRanks (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, okay. Given the prima facie evidence that the image is actually copyrighted by somebody other than the museum, I'll delete it for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hallo Fut.Perf.

there is one guy who is currently changing massively the article about Istanbul. I tried to tell him that he should use the cn template and the discussion page, but he is moving forward as a caterpillar. Can you please have a look? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Already commented on his page. I guess then you didn't see that he also reported this at ANI, did you? Sorry I didn't tell you directly on your talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would invite you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istanbul#removal_of_paragraph_on_Greeks Manocihr (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Fut.Perf. and thanks for your help! Only now I noticed that you answered everywhere except that on my talk page. :-) About your suspect, I had the same, but "in dubio pro reo". :-) Thanks again, Alex2006 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Fut.Perf., you were right! Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mee09

Dude thats just messed up. I spent hours of research looking up his powers and facts and was still going to edit it. I just needed more time! That is why I said it was over 100 hundred years old. But you went a little to far removing all of the research I put into the Imperiex page. I was just starting wikipedia ad I uploaaded a page then it got removed, so I tryed to edit a page and I guess a cant do that either! Well forget you and Wikipedia! Me and the atleast 100 hundred people I told to go on this site are leaving. Thanks to you wiki just lost 100 members....

Mee09 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, sorry if you feel disappointed now, but the fact is, the content you added just wasn't the kind of content we want here. And what has "needing more time" to do with adding obviously false descriptions to an image page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bill & Peter.PNG

I'm not understanding the taboo here as the image is not in any violation. The rationale is valid and has every right to be on the article. It's not doing what you're claiming. Rationales must feature a description of what they are and their copyright holders. Sarujo (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots of TV episodes are only valid if they are individually the object of discussion in the article and used to support substantial, well-sourced analytical commentary about the scene shown. Using one simply as a matter of routine in order to represent the whole episode ("giving a quick snapshot of the main idea behind the episode") is not legitimate. BTW, the next part of the rationale, "the themes behind the character", is meaningless gobbledigook. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Themes behind the character?

Just because you've deem it un-legit, doesn't make set in stone. As guidelines dictate that non-free is discouraged, not rejected. The only reason to justify a removal is if there was a strong copyright violation, which there isn't. Rather this is coming off as a content preference. Articles are entitled to at least one image non-free or whatever. Still, you seemed to have no real qualms regarding the use of Clinton playing DDR in the article. If any image needed to go it would be that one. Sarujo (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the guidelines dictate neither that non-free images are discouraged nor that they are rejected, but that they must be used only where they are needed. And no, articles are not "entitled to at least one". About the other image, I didn't actually even see it, but at least it is embedded in actual commentary and thus has a far better claim to being useful. Since we already have that, it's yet another reason not to randomly add another. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But this the promotional image used by Fox to advertise the episode, so it not random. Wait, if I were to give a commentary of what was going on, then it would be acceptable? Sarujo (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if that discussion was improving the article and motivated in the context of the text. Adding text merely to gain a pretext for keeping an image is not okay. Also, a mere description of the plot detail is not analytical commentary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, how is the DDR scene adding analytical commentary, when all it's doing is showing that he played DDR? Which was a story stopping gag to begin with.

Anyway I updated the rationale. Don't know if it meets approval, seeing as I think it give a commentary on what happening. Sarujo (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay I get what you were talking about with that "themes behind the character" remark. I had cut and pasted the rationale from another image I had upload awhile back, a practice of mine. I guessing someone else had gone in behind me and rewritten that rationale and I failed to notice the change. As it's not what I wrote prior to that image's upload nor what I write for images like this one. Again I have rewritten the rationale to hopefully better associate the article and it's subject. Sarujo (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ADI in which one editor is telling the initiator of the discussion not to edit further and for editors not to respond to her

At this noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mugginsx.27s_demands_for_retraction User talk:La goutte de pluie has initiated the complaint about me again that she stated on noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 Section titled: Reliable sources, not the "truth" which you closed as unsubstantiated. She is also making other allegations and has notified CarolMooredc who has disagreed with me many times on the Death of Caylee Anthony article.

Now, another editor User talk:Cerejota has entered the discussion and has told editors to ignore La goutte de pluie's remarks and for La goutte de pluie to stop editing ON HER OWN ADI THAT SHE INITIATED AGAINST ME. Please see her comments here:

This is becoming a wall of text largely because Muggins and LGDP won't let other people speak. So purpose is being lost here. From the discussion and the points raised, it is clear to me that there are behavorial concerns regarding Mugginsx that are not LGDP's alone, and these need attention. I suggest, to allow this to continue, that LGDP refrain from further participation, as I think her point has been made. Can we then focus on the original complaint? Can we not discuss the content issues and focus on editor behavior? Can ANi regulars ignore that LGDP is participating here, and process this with respect?--Cerejota (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

When I reminded cerejota that is was La goutte de pluie that initiated the board and how could she tell her to stop editing and how could she tell other editors to ignore her, she stated:

Because it is not contributing to evaluating the merits of the original report, namely, about your own behavior. Also, your first comment is puzzling, I didn't say anything about complaints. --Cerejota (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please help me? Mugginsx (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, to tell you the truth, Cerejota's approach appears pretty wise to me. Let me add that I really know nothing about the dispute you were involved in, about that court case (luckily, I live in a country where the case has not even been in the news), and I haven't looked into what went on on that talkpage, so I really have no idea if there's any merit to Goutte's complaint. It should be in your own interest to have people follow Cerejota's advice and try to look into it with an outside perspective and unprejudiced by whatever they think about Goutte (who obviously is currently not very popular on ANI). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How strange. She is not an administrator and I have never seen it before on any discussion board of any type. She has also recently been blocked for her behavior. Nevermind. I guess I will see how it goes. Mugginsx (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Tournas deletion

Hi, I noticed that to my great surprise there was no Wikipedia article on "Kostas Tournas", a very well known Greek singer & composer. I tried to create one and noticed you had deleted a previously existing one, 5 years ago. I don't see a reason posted, so I assume there was a problem with the article itself, as a quick google search will reveal the notability of the person, right? Which means if I write a new one it will probably stay? Most sources of course are Greek, but that should be no problem if I read the rules correctly. Thanks Dkechag (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Apparently it was created in August 2006 and speedy-deleted by myself in November 2006 as a copyright violation. The entry in the deletion log says "copyvio (translated) from http://www.musiccorner.gr/biografies/tournas.html". You are very welcome to write a new one, I don't see any problem with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:LTS Wallpapers 04 1280x1024.jpg

I thought I'd bring this to you attention after seeing it's non-free status. Sarujo (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Gersoncharles

Hi. It appears that after his block and your warning of 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC), Gersoncharles (talk · contribs) has neglected to clean up after his mess of copyright violations.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Arydberg

Hi FP,

I seem to remember something about this editor being topic banned from Aspartame articles but I cannot remember if it was a time limited topic ban or not. I noticed that you posted to his talk page before he wiped it and wanted to let you know that he is back at Talk:Aspartame controversy with the same old song as before. N^oformation ^Talk 10:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was only for three months. However, he can of course easily be banned again if it should become necessary. So far he hasn't been editing the article itself as far as I can see. Do you consider the talkpage contributions particularly disruptive? BTW, I also noticed there seem to be new accounts around that I don't remember, but I haven't looked more closely into it. Any problems with new socks / single-purpose accounts / meatpuppets etc.? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No nothing disruptive so far, just the one post complaining about WP's rules on sourcing, but I remember this user and what a pain he can eventually become and I'd bet that he's brought the exact point to the talk page in the past. As far as socks/meatpuppets go, no nothing more than usual. If Arydberg keeps it up I'll leave a friendly reminder of his history on the article and we can go from there. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

	Quality Management Inspection Medal
	I, [Inspector] No. 108, am honored to award you this medal for your constructive and diligent contributions to the quality management inspection process. I appreciate your assistance in improving the "Stable Version" of the Byzantine Empire article. Always know that you have this humble inspector's gratitude and respect. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hey Dude.jpg

Hi Fpas. Hope you're well. A user has contested the deletion of File:Hey Dude.jpg on my talk page at User_talk:Fastily#File:Hey_Dude.jpg. As an editor who participated in this discussion, your input would be appreciated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with reason for tagging image for deletion

Can you help me out with why this image [6] is marked for deletion? Would really appreciate your help. I understand copyright, creative commons and so on, and thought I could easily provide an appropriate tag for this image, but find myself going around in circles with the "info" on Wikipedia. So, would appreciate your help if you can spare a moment. Cheers, Holon (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. Sorry you found it confusing (I agree our info system on these matters is sub-optimal). The thing is, you currently have provided info that aims in two contradictory directions. At one time you said there was no copyright attached to the image, but that is probably not the case, technically, because under current law, any photograph is automatically copyrighted. You also said you had the owner's permission for use on Wikipedia, but that is unfortunately not enough. What we need is an explicit, formal statement of a release under a free license. Note that this must include permission for free use not merely on Wikipedia but also elsewhere and for any purpose. Then, you used the tag for "non-free promotional" images, but that one won't help us either, because we can't use such images without a free release if they would in principle be replaceable by another, free image that could yet be created, even if it's released for promotional purposes. If you are in contact with the subject and they want this image to be used, the best thing practically will be if you ask them to please send in a licensing statement of their own to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". It can be as short and simple as "I, the copyright holder of the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidAndrich.tif, confirm that I release this image under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution ShareAlilke license (cc-by-sa)." Please just make sure they know what they are signing, i.e. that they are fine with the image being used in other venues too. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I saw you also said elsewhere you felt frustrated about the unclear instructions. I can sort of sympathize. Actually just the other day I was toying with some ideas about how a system should work that would guide an uploader more clearly through the different decisions in uploading. May I use you as a kind of guinea pig for a few moments? Could you take a look at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft and tell me if it would have been helpful to you if the upload system had guided you through a sequence of pages with roughly that content? (Note it's not actually such a wizard yet, as the links are missing, but perhaps you'll get the idea of what I was trying to get at.) Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, greatly appreciated. Yeah, I'm up for being a guinea pig with that one, so I'll check it out as soon as I have time and get back to you. I think it's likely I can get the subject to grant the permission, though perhaps I should load up a lower-res version as I tend to do with my own images when I put my (original) music online. So I assume I remove the "non-free promotional image" tag if and when the subject grants the permission, having understood what this means? Does this automatically tag the image? Yep, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft is most certainly far clearer than anything I located within about 15 mins before seeking your advice, at least in this instance. It does help that I know a bit about creative commons, though, so I don't know how someone would go with the Creative commons by-sa link to a full article, but I guess that can't be over-simplified. Again, thanks! Holon (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, and thanks for the feedback. I wonder if we will ever find a way of actually implementing this. They now have a new uploading system on Commons that does a few things similarly, but I haven't figured out how to adapt it to our needs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)::

Sorry to bug you again. After a bit more confusion, I've now received and forwarded a message with the form you suggested to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". I have now also included the template to say I've done this. That template states:

"An email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS.

Note to uploaders: Please copy the URL of this image or article in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it. If an email cannot be found in the OTRS system, the content may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information."

I assume the reference to the copy of the URL is as per your instructions, i.e. in the email to wimimedia.org. The note to uploaders seems badly worded to say the least. To what does "it" refer in the first sentence? It doesn't make sense to me that "it" could refer to the email. The second sentence seamlessly follows on with passive voice and object being the email. My best guess is that it means something like: "Please include the URL of this image or article in the email you send to Wikimedia.org to assist OTRS volunteers to find the evidence of permission. If this email cannot be found in the OTRS system, the content may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information". Is that right? Its guesswork for me to try to figure out whether I need to copy the URL of the image to another page or place. It's also guesswork for me to try to work out what is needed so that volunteers can find the email. Seems to me the message is a lesson in how not to write for Wikipedia! Not your problem, I realise, just hoping you'll help given it seems you have engaged in attempts to make these requirements clearer! Cheers, Holon (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the above all worked out, and the template was automatically placed on the page. I presume my interpretation above was correct. Holon (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle

How am I abusing Twinkle 1. You WERE engaged in an edit war. 2. Gmac360 did add unsourced info to John Cena. 3. 2011typhoon was also in an edit war.

these warnings were NOT random --ChristianandJericho 10:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This warning was clearly abusive (the person you "warned" had in fact been the object of quite bad personal attacks, but hadn't made any himself.) This makes no sense either. In any case, automated warnings are nonsense when a matter is already being taken care of at the admin noticeboards. You know, at a place where people express real advice and real warnings, individually. As for edit-warring warnings, they are also useless, when you can't even be bothered to spell out on what article it supposedly happened, and have evidently taken no time to understand the underlying dispute situation. There's also still the very sound advice of don't template the regulars. So, stop it. Now, see, this is an actual warning, the way it ought to be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright fine, I will just use twinkle when necessary --ChristianandJericho 10:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I am Leny Ann Abraham(talk|contribs) 10:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC) the error is regretted.

Image licencing assistance required

Fpas, I've got a GA candidate at HMS Endymion (1865) which is on hold. One of the minor problems raised is licencing for some of the images. Do you have any suggestions as to which would be the correct licences? Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't tell you a lot, I'm afraid. For the "rounding Cape Horn" pic, even the Nautical Museum doesn't seem to know the biography of the painter. If I understand this correctly, it was donated to the museum in the 1930s and is believed to be from some time in the 19th century, but that unfortunately tells us nothing about the early publication history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least I think I identified the painter; a royal navy lieutenant of that name (but spelled "Lillingston", not "Lillington") died in 1904. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jordan statue image move from commons

I created File:Michael Jordan Statue.jpg. I am a bit confused on how to properly document the prior information because although the page history shows it was uploaded by a user at 14:13, the file history says it was uploaded at 14:15 by a bot. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's just the thing with "Flickr Upload Bot" – it's a system where a user can request the bot to do an upload for them. I wouldn't worry about those details here. You new upload looks fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

Before this went out of control, would you mind to look at what is going on with Totalitarianism? Sorry to bother you, this has little to do with the Balkans, but I know you sort of (dis)like ledes with a good amount of , and this one is a particularly juicy example, and well-defended by a bunch of edit-warriors. The sourcing is somewhat dubious by itself, as usual in such cases. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

you were in this somehow before so...

[7]. Make of it what you will. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit-war relapse

User Voyevoda, whom you have blocked in the past is warring again, renaming a page [[8]] to reflect the Russian POV as the main. He also routinely inserts insult into edit summaries.--Galassi (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarians

Hi, Future Perfect. I know you're currently busy at Macedonian language, but could you please take a look at Talk:Bulgarians#Bulgarian citizens in the Republic of Macedonia when you get a chance. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Poeticbent/Richard Tylman

I challenge this. Please use WP:MFD instead of a speedy. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a reason for doing it quietly and quickly. I don't think having a big debate about it right now would be in anybody's best interest. BTW, I'm currently in e-mail contact with Pb. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I see why, per my previous edit. I agree we may want to wait with MfD, and if you are in a contact with him, his wishes could be important here. But without knowing more (you may want to ask Pb. if he would like me cc-id on the conversation, perhaps), I'd stress that I treat Pb. as a user who was unjustly treated by the system, harassed (primarily through abuse on the page you just deleted, in good faith, I agree), and who created lot of constructive content (up to and including GAs) before he left. As such, we need to make an effort to bring him back to the project, not to put him through another inquisition based on flaky evidence. I'd hope that you are being friendly to him in the emails. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Hello. You are always very resolute concerning 3RR. User:Vitaly N. already made 4 reverts in the article Ukrainians not to speak of deleting sourced information or of hidden threats [9], [10]. Please prove that you have no double standards. --Voyevoda (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians need help if fight against vandalism on the Wikipedia! Ukrainians are presented as they are not a nation but multiethnic part of the Russian people and thats open border with fascism on Wikipedia. There is no similar examples when it comes to articles on other nations. Several well known users such as Voyevoda are persistent in these efforts to show that Ukrainians are not separate nation. At the same time reliable information is deleted and replaced with the interpretations without a source or unreadable sources. Almost every trace of Ukrainians in Russia's history has been cleared and lot's of Ukrainian artist referred to only as a Russian (with my respect to Russians). Users of this work are obviously in anti Ukrainian mood to such an extent that they intentionally write untruth or deliberately erase the facts and finaly damage the work of Wikipedia as an objective media. My suggestion is to devote greater attention to articles related to the Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture in general. Administrators should especially pay attention to several users who are falsely presenting themselves as neutral - Voyevoda is great example of that! Their hatred of Ukrainians is obvious and I do not need to name them. They are very familiar with their unhonest work! I hope that administrators will begin to act and punish those users who spread hatred among the peoples! This sentences were previously wroted by user SeikoEn and I am totally suporting his honest work and toughts! Thanks for further help!--Vitaly N. (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction! May I now return the article to the initial version? Regards, --Voyevoda (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The edit warring was even more extensive, considering the fact that Vitaly N. was identified as a sock puppet of User:SeikoEn. --Voyevoda (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of FaithFreedom.com

Hi, I created FaithFreedom.com Website article this afternoon. I went out for lunch and by the time I returned, it was deleted. I mentioned in the edit summary of the article that it was just the start of the article. It definitely needed more stuff to be retained on the Wikipedia and hence further editing. But it was directed for an important objective - presenting the different version of the issues raised by Faithfreedom.org website. Deleting one article and retaining the other will give a biased view of Wikipedia. Hence I request the restoration of FaithFreedom.com, even if it is to be done with a deletion (not speedy deletion) tag. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I'm just here to say sorry for the warning about the 3RR I gave you awhile ago, I did not know you were an experienced editor --ChristianandJericho 17:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeking admin intervention

Hi FPS, long time no see. Please take a look at recent edit history at Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. I understand you just blocked one of the editors there; please could you also assess the behaviour of the IPs there and whether they are all one user. Looks like we have an edit warrior, possibly in breach of 3RR, resorting to national sentiment in the EE topic area; this comes into the DIGWUREN zone. I've issued a warning to no avail. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, see Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI I've mentioned this note at Malik Shabazz's talk page. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Save Bombay Committee.jpg

Look at the right side of the image in the source link. It says: "Some Rights Reserved". Click on it and you will find that it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.Townblight (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. The trouble is just, I see no evidence that the owner of the Picasa account is actually the owner of the image. Is there any indication he is an authorized representative of that organization the image represents? Because many people just upload all sorts of things they don't really own on Picasa, and license statements from such uploaders are worthless for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that the Picasa account belongs to the organization: http://www.savebombaycommittee.org/gallery/index.html -- here the links of the official website of the organization link directly to that picasa account.

Evidence that your "no evidence that the owner of the Picasa account is actually the owner of the image" is uncalled for: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADandi_March_2.png&action=historysubmit&diff=417884139&oldid=417858458 -- this link gives an example of similar mistake like yours is reverted.

Townblight (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued unconstructive editing

Re User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/Archive_23#Unconstructive_editing, appears as a concern again. Protection? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See obsessive urge to pipe discussion - no reply, and reverts: 1 2 3. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Saihimesh latest photo addition

File:VanessaWebb2.jpg appears to be from Tennisrecruiting.net via Duke University Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at In fact's talk page.
Message added 08:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In fact ( contact ) 08:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi! If you are reading this please help me out with certain things because I am just 17 and need your help. Thanks! Annaspervez (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Distributor108

Just FYI, didn't know if you happened to see his parting shot since it was subsequently deleted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons

Hi. Do you have any opinion on those files ?

• A
• B
• C

Takabeg (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I added the copyright information for the image.

The warning can now be removed. Thank you for notifying me. --Rrrr5 (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, now it should be all fixed. --Rrrr5 (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason to Delete Pankajpachauri.jpg file =

May I know, why you remove Pankajpachauri.jpg , as you mention wrong tag. I have mention right tag, please perform revert to Pankajpachauri.jpg file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulchandola (talk • contribs)

According to our rules, you cannot use a copyrighted (non-free) TV screenshot to serve as a portrait in an article. The tag you added is only for screenshots that are used to support critical commentary on the program itself, in articles about TV series, movies etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

infoboxes

If you think an article would not profit from an infobox, could you change the tag from 'yes' to 'no'? If you delete it, they'll just get tagged again. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, fair enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been going through and adding infoboxes (scores of Chinese-dialect articles, for example, where they're quite useful), but in some cases I don't know if they're warranted, and in some I simply don't care. But the 'box-needed' category only had 3 articles, so I took all articles tagged for WP languages/linguistics that did not, threw out those that did not deal with varieties of language, and tagged most of the rest. Since that's over 400 articles, I didn't go through them all individually, and as I said, I'm not always sure, so I tried to err on the side of inclusion. Since I'll probably repeat this every once in a while to catch new poorly formatted language articles, having an explicit 'no' is helpful.

If you're ever bored, there's a whole list of 'em waiting for a second opinion! — kwami (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that list. I was just going back through a few that I cared about, more or less, starting with the Greek ones. Since infoboxes must burn in Hell, you'd probably find me on the skeptical side of things in some more cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

With all respect

Stop harassing my edits, if you don't like my re-assessments I recommend you to a) Stop assuming I don't read the articles, b) read the quality scale (of all the projects) and c)(Re)request an assessment to the relevant projects if you disagree with my judgment. Do not reply to me. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I re-assessed your page without checking it correctly, that's you wanted to hear? Fine. Now, you are the admin, and "I don't want to be blocked", so, congratulations, do the assess by yourself I'm not going to do them because my judgement is wrong and I want to let down the editors of the pages I've re-assessed with "your article is a start-class, I'm laughing about it. I hope you have help from somebody else because in more than one year of doing this I have found no one assessing pages. And for Sata, you want it simple: two unsourced sections, more unsourced information elsewhere, and randomly this is a C-class article. And again, if you don't like Sata assess click here and list it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archaic Greek alphabets

Hello! Your submission of Archaic Greek alphabets at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Nothing major, just a couple of paras need citations. The hook does not accord to the rigid DYK rules, but it is OK by me. Nice article. BabelStone (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've replied re images vs Unicode on my talk page. BabelStone (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and why is it semi-protected? That can't be right can it? BabelStone (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with this one. About the semiprotection, like all Greek alphabet topics, it's been a target of disruption from User:Wikinger. We could try unprotecting it, but I'm not very optimistic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing on that DYK nomination... --Orlady (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

More on Izadso

Wishing to thank you once again for your assistance in sorting out the whole Kühntop mess, I just wanted to let you know that Izadso has asked to be unblocked; I have informed that I'd be willing to consider it, provided he accept some conditions. I have listed them here. If you wish to chime in, your comments would be appreciated! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, good job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Revdel/account block needed asap

Can you assist? Someone appears to have revealed their WP password - see this. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

... and faster than a speeding bullet! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

HSC-9 Image Copyrights

All of the pictures I have uploaded have been flagged for deletion by you. Every picture I have uploaded belongs to HELICOPTER SEA COMBAT SQUADRON NINE (HSC-9), UNITED STATES NAVY. I am in HSC-9, and have pulled all of the pictures from our archives. I indicated in each upload that it was from a government source, and even included our squadron name.
Would you mind explaining what additional information is needed, so that these pictures will not be deleted?
Lassenloop (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice

This is to inform you that the consensus of the discussion in the Parthian Empire's talk page was to mention possibly in the description of the picture. No matter how many users were for it or against it. But the result was that. Therefore changing the words and of course worse than that deleting the image completely and threatening me to be blocked in the edit summary is against the wikipedia's rules and by doing such a thing, you are abusing the power of your adminship.

Another time you abused your power was when you completely removed the House of Suren's crest while I was trying to prove it by different sources. You posted me a warning message in my talk page which was not good for that situation. Simply because I was not edit waring , I wasn't simply reverting you, any time I was in with a new source. and finally I did not edit the article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. In fact ( contact ) 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is quite simple: You need reliable sources for any claim you make; you have not brought any, for either of the two issues. As long as you have no sources, these claims stay out of the article. You are welcome to bring them back if and when you find reliable sources. A reliable source for a matter of archaeology, like this, is an academic specialist publication in the field of archaelogy. Anything less than that simply won't do. And no, a claim made in a bunch of non-reliable sources does not translate into a "possibly" in Wikipedia; it translates into no mention at all.

And yes, of course you were edit-warring, and no, I didn't say anything about using my admin status, so stop making nonsensical accusations about "abusing my power". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1- Just to clarify it, when there is a consensus about something among users in wikipedia, if after a while a user wants to change it, he/she should first discuss it and in case make a new consensus before making any changes. (something that you did not do in this case)

You have reverted a consensus without any prior discussion.

In this case a user who changes the consensus should be reverted.

2- Who is going to decide whether a source is reliable or not ? you ?!

Let me once again remind you that I was not edit warring, I have never done such a thing and I won't do it in the future. simply because it's against the rules in here. As I have said before I was putting back the crest each time with a new source. It was you who keeps deleting the sourced material from the article (edit warring). In fact ( contact ) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/timelines/mideast/parthia.html

In fact ( contact ) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Still not a reliable source. That's an amateur website that quotes Wikipedia among its own sources, for crying out loud. You really need to get off Google, and get into a library. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, It does not mention Wikipedia as a source for the Parthia/Parthian section. In fact ( contact ) 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Any work that uses Wikipedia as a source for anything is automatically unreliable as a whole. Serious academics don't use Wikipedia as a source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Forgive me to ask you this question, But I am really starting to think that you are Wikihounding me. You are opposing me everywhere ! Please tell me I am wrong. Because I am really starting to panic. In fact ( contact ) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to panic. I look at people's contribution histories. That's normal; that's what we have them for. If I see an editor making problematic edits of a similar kind on several pages, I sometimes go and see what's going on. Entirely normal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skopje 2014 Vardar.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skopje 2014 Vardar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:18, 27 September 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.

This is from last week or so, but I am still waiting for a response. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Brunodam articles

I'm not sure of the criteria and procedure for this, or if a discussion took place on it, but I'd like to flag up Italian irredentism in Corsica, Italian irredentism in Savoy, Italian irredentism in Nice, Italian irredentism in Malta, Italian irredentism in Switzerland, Romans in Nubia, Nero expedition to Ethiopia all as work of Brunodam. There are probably many more, but as me and other editors have worked on rescuing these articles from Brunodam's POV, it would be nice to know what to do about the situation. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it to FP's own good judgement, Brutal. I for one do not think we should allow Brunodam to create a series of articles called "Itallian irredentism in XY", no matter how "rescued" - this guy should not be allowed to project his POV in such an immensely significant way. As I said the very concept/title, and often also the structure, of these articles is biased and offensive (for Italians as well as I can imagine). I have not read most of the articles you listed, but I know for certain that articles like Italian Province of Spalato simply have to go. (Shouldn't this be on ANI?) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Archaic Greek alphabets

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Organization

Hi, Some changes has done in this article, and also I will improve it with new reliable sources, please take a look and write your opinion here. Thanks Mehran ^Debate 20:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alpha and Omega

Not really -- I wanted to move down the small image added at left, and it seems that there was an edit conflict, but I didn't get an edit conflict warning message (that happens sometimes)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

hello

I hadnt see the discussion Now with the last economic crisis, dont you think that it would be interesting and reliable an article like this? (anti-greek sentiment?). Dont you think that there are reasons, apart the economics? Greco22 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Albania (Balkans) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Albania (Balkans). Since you had some involvement with the Albania (Balkans) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User:YoonioR

Hallo Future Perfect at Sunrise, schau mal bitte bei commons:User:YoonioR vorbei; ist das ein bekannter Vandale oder? --Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ja, bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass er das ist. Hier auf en-wiki ist er ja auch per CU identifizert worden (User:YoonioR, geblockt von CU User:MuZemike), und auf pl-wiki ist er anscheinend auch schon negativ aufgefallen. Seine Aktivitäten auf anderen Wikis passen ins Schema. Dass er dann wieder mal seine eigenen Sockentags platziert, ist auch nichts neues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 4 October 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 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi FPaS, just to say that if you don't have the time for the above or don't want to touch it no worries but do let me know and I'll go elsewhere--Cailil ^talk 08:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I have lifted this block per request at WP:ANI [11], to allow you to migrate from your old local account Omulazimoglu to this unified SUL account, noting that having used both accounts in parallel back in late 2009 was a mistake but evidently not intentional deceptive sockpuppetry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems now everthing is ok and i can use same username on wikipedia and commons. Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the technocracy article dispute

The "Precursor" section of the Technocracy article advances a position that is not supported by the sources that are cited. This is in violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. The content qualifies as WP:NOR, and must be removed per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Secondly, user Fifelfoo exhibits a behavior that amounts to accussing other editors of being sock puppets of user FidelDrumbo without any basis in fact. Please have an administrator investigate these claims to clear the name of those involved. Thank you. Malik047 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Before I investigate further where you suddenly popped up from, here's a straight question: were you the 84.196.72.121 IP? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Range block

Hey, could you do something with [12]? I don't think that this block is OK, because it's a big range of main Polish ISP. There's really many, many users affected with it. Tell me what's your problem with user:Wikinger, maybe there's a way of getting rid of him... Herr Kriss (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The issues with this vandal are outlined at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger. The problems have been so severe and persistent that unfortunately this rangeblock remains necessary. As far as I know, even at pl-wiki they have been considering making these rangeblocks (he's been all over their admin board all these days), and I assume collateral damage there would be significantly higher. I'm not in fact aware of any concrete collateral damage here so far, can you point to any? But in any case, I'm afraid I'm not willing to lift this range block at this time. If you know of any way of getting rid of the guy, I'd be glad to hear of it. As far as I know somebody from pl-wiki once had some response to a provider complaint, but that evidently hasn't so far led to any improvement of the situation either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How you'd see that damage? The damage there are people who can't edit and fix Wikipedia. It's invisible, but still damages Wiki. As far as I learnt from Internet, 99% of those users just leave the site and part of them won't ever come back here to edit. Others wants to notice admins and half of them will find address to OTRS and write there. So, I guess it will be about zero. "He's been all over their admin board all these days" - you haven't seen that, have you? Because I did, and that's not really as you write. But never mind Polish Wikipedia. The point is that people suffer cause administrators are too lazy - to block, to revert, etc. It's cruel and some admins will neglect it, but it's the truth. I'm an admin on WMF projects for many years and I've learned that you can't take one's privilege (i.e. editing and creating account) because you have a problem with idiot. It's totally negative of wiki and a classical biting newbies. For you it's just bunch of anonymous people, but imagine how it would feel to be one of them. The bigger Wikipedia doesn't mean that we could range block many people (and Poles are active users, as you see from article count) without thinking how to resolve it. And it's mostly up to you to resolve it, not for me or people affected. Editing Wikipedia is a work for free, so when they are not able to work, they just resign. I'm noticing that your block helps block Wikinger (BTW he can use proxy and there's a loads of not blocked ones on en.wiki) and defend Wiki from damage, but you are ignoring many active people which fixes more than Wikinger destroys (but they can't). I offer you English>Polish translation (official) and vice-versa (not official). Maybe you should contact Polish admins (I've resigned about year ago, so I can't help you) and they will tell you some tips about him? I could help you find some people who were active these days, but you'd have to talk with them and it won't be easy work - official mails, etc. So if you don't will to write them, then point me an admin who have a free time and is willing to work on that problem. Please, don't look at people as at IP number, but as at humans who wants to help and they are not able. Herr Kriss (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling me lazy will not help you make me reconsider my position. I've had to sacrifice insane amounts of my time defending this project and its sister projects (and myself) from this particular madman; my patience in this case is now limited, and I know that the damage prevented by the blocks is large enough that I'm willing to accept some amount of collateral damage as a reasonable price to pay. On pl-wiki, they once had another particularly nasty vandal, incidentally on this same ISP; they range-blocked the ISP – essentially, a whole major Polish city – until the ISP kicked the user out. This may well be necessary again, and if pl-wiki decides to do this (as they were considering doing), so much the better. pl:User:Beau seems to be the person who already had some contact with the ISP in question [13]. Meanwhile, legitimate users who come here to en-wiki and find themselves caught in the rangeblock are encouraged to use the {{unblock}} template and will then be given help on how to create an account and avoid the block; so far, in this case, the number of people who have done so has been zero (to the best of my knowledge), so I assume the dark figure of unreported cases can't be that high. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm switching to e-mail talk. Herr Kriss (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fideldrumbo

You recently blocked Fideldrumbo. Could you look at the abusive IP user 175.100.41.133 who shares their editing interests, posts identical documents, and is engaging in personal attacks? Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And 84.196.72.121 appears to be puppetting the same conduct of 175.100.41.133 and FidelDrumbo at Technocracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

175.100.41.250 is signing posts in exactly the same was as 175.100.41.133, and posting while banned. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility please

Hi Fut.Perf. My intention is not to discuss on a particular topic, but I'd rather appreciate more civil tone when blaming other users. Comments like "pretty useless bunch" and "politically motivated abuse of admin powers" are not something that is open to publicity and anyone should read. I therefore warn you to remain civil with no attacks to others anywhere on Wikipedia. If you like to express your emotionally motivated thoughts to anyone else, you have many other allowed ways to do it, but surely not on Wikipedia. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion of the admin corps on your project is well-founded, and I will express it in any way I see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have something that is well-founded, it doesn't allow you to use confrontational tone. I also have some thoughts, but being impudent is not the right way to express them. My warn again is that Wikipedia is not a place where you can accuse other users. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruno again?

This article and its creation (by a user who edits twice a year and strangely started editing now once again) fit Bruno's mo in more than one aspect. The stuff's a blatant WP:POVFORK in any case, at best worth a note in the main article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

About Philippine Governemnt Seals

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I was wondering if I could get your advice. See I was browsing city and town articles when I spotted some of their official seal's summary in the source description said's Own Work and also the author claimed by a user. I want to seek your advice. Is this really possible? ---- BrianZhukov ^{talk now!} 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC+8)

Image licensing

Dear Future Perfect, Anthony Nguyen is my name and that is my photo, however Moo-Hyun Kim is the director of the hospital in question and I am an employee of his. The image for the first file is his property, and he has asked me to upload it. Unfortunately he is not very computer literate, and I'm pretty sure he would be unable to do it. I'm unsure of how to license it appropriately. The other two flagged images are also hospital property, but we are unsure of how to get permission to use them. Please advise if possible.

- Anthony

Photograph Biswabijoy Sen.jpg

Hi this is a photograph which has been stylised using Nero Photo Snap viewer and useing the "Aging" effect. If required, I can send you the original image. Please consider

Deletion

Fut.Perf. Why are you so antagonistic about the article on Daniel Kanu, please am not Daniel Kanu am not a politician, am a programmer and on of his fans in Nigeria. There articles on him on independent sources on the web, he has contributed a lot for our democracy (talk)

Vojsava Tripalda

Hello! I just wanted to inform you that we should finish the work we started. Article Vojsava Tripalda, with numerous problematic parts, are recreated so far by lede and one section, so i ask you what should we do next? Lets finish this.

• Recreated article
• Talk for the recreation

Thanks for you great contribution so far. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 15:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Fyi: [14], [15]. Paul August ☎ 13:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pontic Greek

Could you have an eye on the article about Pontic Greek? It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion in the classification and naming of the various dialects.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions: topic ban

You appear to have imposed an invalid ban on my account. An appeal will be sent directly to the Committee. STSC (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have been more appropriate if you had pointed out to me why you felt the ban is invalid; that way, we might even have discussed it, like reasonable people. But in any case, it seems you have already gone ahead and asked the arbs directly, so I guess I'll just leave it to them to handle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I received a ban appeal by email, and I am replying here in order to keep conversations together as much as possible. Firstly, as a general principle, I would never think to undo a fellow administrator's action without some sort of communication with them first, both from the appealing party and from myself. Secondly, whilst I was the Arbitration Committee clerk in the Senkaku Islands arbitration case, I am otherwise uninvolved in this dispute, and do not intend to involve myself further. Thirdly, if the intent is to appeal directly to the committee, I do not see what role I am expected to play. I will consequently not be taking any action on the ban appeal. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. From what STSC said, I gather he meant to appeal to the committee itself, so maybe he thought you as the clerk would be forwarding it to them; but in any case he seems to have written to NYB too so I suppose the committee has what it needs. STSC: in principle, you could also appeal to the community via WP:AE; the process is outlined there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I was advised by an arbitrator to appeal via AE before appealing to the Committee. I would discuss this issue with you first before going through the AE process. As you have mentioned "like reasonable people", I feel that you should at least contact the editor directly on their talk page to raise any issue you may have before you decide to impose any ban on them. Besides, I believe it is a requirement to warn the editor directly before any sanction is imposed. I had made one revert in order to restore a version close to the original version before the change of the wording in the NCGN page. I don't think I fit into this description for a sanction: "if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". STSC (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning was given on the guideline talkpage; besides, it is longstanding practice that editors who are named parties of the Arbcom case in question don't need extra notifications about the formalities, as they are already aware of the decision, especially when it's so recent. Edit-warring on a guideline page is a particularly serious matter, and you were continuing this problematic conduct after the warning. Moreover, the style and tone of your accompanying talkpage message displayed an aggressive, unconstructive attitude in your editing. I get the same impression from going over your talkpage contributions in the archives of Talk:Senkaku Islands; they are repetitive, fail to constructively address arguments by other editors, and could well be described as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For these reasons, I believe the sanction is justified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your general statement on the NCGN page is hardly a warning at all; and a direct warning should be given to the editor as required by the Committee. I also refute the allegations you made to justify your questionable sanction. This serves as a notice to you that an arbitration enforcement action appeal is lodged. STSC (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that you yourself have been warned by another admin "to remain civil with no attacks to others anywhere on Wikipedia" in Civility please. STSC (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And what on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? How has FutPerf attacked you or been uncivil? I see nothing remotely of the sort here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was in response to his allegations on me being uncivil apparently. STSC (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, tu quoque is hardly an argument for the lifting of sanctions. And that's assuming the accusation up the page that FutPerf has been uncivil is even accurate, which I don't see much evidence for. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

From the content in the "Civility please" alone, we can see his tone of aggressive and nonconstructive attitude. STSC (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Essay on AE

I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Voyevoda edit-warring again

Undiscussed reverts with insults in edit summaries - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivan_Fyodorov_(printer)&curid=576666&action=history.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You assistance

Hi there. I would appreciate your assistance on the below matter. In the article about Peloponnese, two users keep reverting all the time pics that I have put there to help the article on the grounds that they are "technically poor". On the other hands the photos they put are a) a photo about Rio-antirrio bridge, which to begin with, its not even in Peloponnese, and b) the Corinth Canal, which again is not part of Peloponnese! The first is a bridge that connects the mainland with Peloponnese and the second is a Canal that seperates the mainland and Peloponnese! Total inconsistency! If you recall, you had also praised many of my pictures and you moved them in Wikipedia Commons as well. I would like your assistance in this article, since you are an experienced and "old" user. Thanks.Nochoje (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI I mentioned you

here [16] and btw your chiming in might help. Thanks! -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Taichung Edit

You reverted the table format at Taichung stating that there were many non-free images. Would you consider reverting to the table format, but replacing the non-free images with the national flag of the country? Would this fix the problem? Please advise me. Jacsam2 (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't object to such a table version on image policy grounds, so I wouldn't prevent you from reinstating that in my role as an administrator, but as an editor, I am still opposed to it, on the grounds I and others explained on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. I very strongly recommend you start listening more carefully to what other editors tell you, because you appear to be editing stubbornly against consensus. I am also not particularly happy you reinstated that list of countries on Byzantine Empire, again without providing a reason for it on the talkpage as you were asked to do. This is edit-warring, and it's not good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand and am listening, and apologise for the Byzantine edit, I just thought the objection was for the length added, and not content. The edit was a very time consuming one and I would very much appreciate if you would allow me to revert to it. Also, a concensus has yet to be reached at that page.

Jacsam2 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

ARBMAC restriction on LAz17

I see you weakened the deal that I struck with LAz17, logged at WP:ARBMAC, shortly after it was struck. What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't remember the exact details of the situation around that request right now, but as far as I can figure out, I had no intention of interfering with any sanction imposed by you. I imposed an original topic ban, you then added a strengthened version on top of it, then you rescinded your part of the topic ban, leaving mine intact, and I later modified "my" part too. Do you feel it interferes unduly with what you were doing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to figure out what the current restriction is. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg again

Since you are the warning admin, please take a look at this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you so much for this topic ban. It saved a lot of disruption, both in the form of continued discussion from an editor, and also from the disruption that long and unnecessary dispute resolution causes. Cutting to the chase in such a clear cut case was a wise thing to do. Thanks! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

STSC evaded his topic-ban using Lvhis as a proxy.

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise. User:STSC edited a banned article using User:Lvhis as a proxy.

• Lvhis halted to respond to my post to Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute at 21:17, 11 October (UTC).[17]
• STSC requested Lvhis to enable e-mail account of Wikipedia at 4:06, 17 October (UTC).[18]
• Lvhis enabled his e-mail account of Wikipedia at 23:43, 18 October (UTC).[19]
• STSC sent an e-mail to Lvhis at 01:38, 19 October (UTC).[20]
• Lvhis received the e-mail at 03:56, 19 October (UTC).[21]
• Lvhis edited Talk:Senkaku Islands 14 hours after receiving the e-mail at 17:55, 19 October (UTC).[22]

Lvhis is a SPA and solely editing Senkaku Islands articles. The purpose of STSC's communication with Lvhis by e-mail is nothing other than to suggest Lvhis a proxy editing of the STSC's idea. I think a banned user should not communicate with an editor who is involved in a banned article and discuss about the article. Even if it is not a direct edit request but a simple advice, such an action will affect the editor with STSC's idea. I would appreciate if you could impose an extended period of ban and block on both users as a violation of WP:BAN. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Gersoncharles

Hi. It appears that after his block and your warning of 26 February, Gersoncharles (talk · contribs) has neglected to clean up after his mess of copyright violations. I tried to contact you before about this, but my message was immediately archived.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I only see two remaining images contributed by him, which are probably legitimate, and no upload attempts after that warning. Is there other problematic stuff around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned - user:samofi

Its clear ethnic nationalism of 6-7 Hungarian users, they are canvassing, they contact together by email, they told that Slovakia is neofascist state (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=454209623). They makes a falsification of history and Iam banned? What exactly is nationalistic in my edits? I used talk:pages and discuss all my edits. But nothing happened to this users (they were reported for a few times), they were not even warned because of their behaviour. They can create a synthesis and original research or fringe theory and it will be no opposition against this original research? Look honestly to this article: Principality of Hungary - is it no reason to discuss it? I started terminological discussion between terms Magar(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magyar) and Hungarian(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hungarian). Is it nationalistic? Is this an open encyclopedia? This elimination of Slovak history and Slovak Wikipedians is crazy. I see the black future of Wikipedia, we will have a big inviolate ideological groups and other significant opinions will be banned. Congratulation, bravo. --Samofi (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir

This unpleasantness with Samofi has crossed my path a few times now, and I'm not really trying to get involved, but I had to investigate one thing - please see User talk:Fakirbakir#statement about Slovakia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

AltGr

I have just started a section Talk:AltGr_key#Keypress_and_keyboard about this distinction. --Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Işık Koşaner

Somehow I have given up on Wikipedia - one has to constantly battle with vandalism (most of whom do it without logging in), and sometimes one has to defend administrative decisions also. About the photo in Işık Koşaner,I received this sometime back, "A file that you uploaded or altered, File:General Işık Koşaner.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)" I made a mistake of saying it is UN photo, although it was from NATO (I do not think I saw an option for NATO). But copyright issue was very clear, it was clear the photo was linked from NATO, and NATO photos are allowed for "fair use", unless they ask one to take it down as shown here: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-C906C813-FF2FB6CF/natolive/68162.htm I think people who deals with such issues should know that, rather than expecting the editors to do all the work to satisfy the admins. I do not particularly worry about whether that photo stays there or not, I just put it there to help out. So I am not going to take any effort in putting it back. But I think there should be a better way of dealing with such things - makes it easier for everyone. Thanks. --Kijacob (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your Zeal

We might have had our disagreements, but your zeal is needed here. This user has had very lengthy problems with uploading incorrect and sometimes knowingly false image licensing tags. What is going on now is probably about the fourth time that someone has talked to the user. The user doesn't really seem to care, and continues with business as usual. I think he/she means well, but this matter really does need an admin to tell the user that this is not a game and putting fake image copyright tags on Wikipedia is very serious. I think you would be the perfect person to do it. -OberRanks (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: AE thread and followup

Very well, I have no interested in this wikidramu beyond stating that the treatment of some editors was unfair. I will go and remove my post. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I also asked for ArbCom clarification of your interpretation of i-ban. Since I mention you there, this is a courtesy link: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:EEML. Please note I am doing this in good faith, trying to understand the intricacies of the wikilaws here. If the ArbCom supports your interpretation, rest assured I will try my best to abide by it. At this time, however, I respectfully disagree, as I believe it imparts on my right to free speech. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Voyevoda and Lvivske

Please note my last messages at User talk:Voyevoda and Talk:Ukrainians. Thanks. GreyHood ^Talk 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Voyevoda

Re Voevoda: He refers to Ukrainians as "свидомиты"- svidomites, i.e. a conflation of terms "svidomyj" (lit.-aware, i.e. ethnically conscious) and "sodomites" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greyhood&diff=458144140&oldid=458142617). Not nice. Voyevoda language pattern and his use of obscure and tendentious sources also closely correspond to those of the currtently indeffed user Kuban Kazak. Worth checking for socks.--Galassi (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the terms. Voyevoda is Ukrainian himself, and the terms "svidomyj" and "свидомиты" do not have such a wide meaning, being used only for a certain kind of Ukrainian nationalists. GreyHood ^Talk 10:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the terms yourself. The term is widespread, and "svidomite" is extremely derogatory, used by Russian nationalists for the effect of instant irritation in Ukrainians. KKazak/Voyevoda's own ethnic backgound is irrelevant here.--Galassi (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You write above yourself that the term denotes "ethnically conscious" Ukrainians, and not all of them are so concious. "Svidomite" is often used by Eastern and Southern Ukrainians as well as by Russians (not only by nationalists) towards the supposedly worst kind of Ukrainian nationalists. In this sense, the term is more political than ethnic. Of course it is not welcomed in the normal discussion, but still I do not understand why you try to turn it into the denotation of all Ukrainians and why at all you take this on your own part. GreyHood ^Talk 12:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You might need a Reliable Source re such limitations. My OR seems to indicate that the term is commonly applied to all who favor Ukrainian independence.--Galassi (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You just said it yourself: its political, not ethnic. I hope you are aware that not all Ukrainians favour Ukrainian independence. GreyHood ^Talk 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE.--Galassi (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are too optimistic. I think further discussion is rather pointless: it is obvious that Voyevoda should have been more polite anyway, whatever the scale of offence you take. GreyHood ^Talk 14:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians

Your actions are entirely justified. I made a few edit mistakes because I have not devoted attention to other users corrections. I'll be completely honest with you because you did your job very professionally. My latest changes were related only to Ukrainians because I didn't wanted to allow users such as Voyevoda to sabotage the site. I must admit, that for further work on Wikipedia I'm not interested. Unhonest user and provocator Voyevoda is the reason why am I still here. Before that, I've always tried to do my job professionally, for examplle this is my work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukrainians_Ukraine_english_version.jpg, or maybe this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kievan_Rus%27_Kyivan_Rus%27_early_formation_862_912.jpg ... Sources, facts and names are law for me, but Wikipedia is in realy big mess because of users such as Voyevoda - there is no even political opinions but a pure provocation and hatred of Ukrainians national selfindetification (postcolonial problem). I am grateful for what you have intervened! Best regards!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Other users

One more thing, in my opinion Lvivske and Galassi are realy not responsible for edit war situation. And, it seems to me that Greyhood only supports Voyevoda's russian postion, but still isn't responsible for edit war as Voyevoda. Thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Russavia

Hello FPatS. From your comments at the above-mentioned request I sense that you are mellowing out in your attitude to interaction bans. At one point you wanted us to ignore them. In the cases where AE is most effective, I think it finds a decision rule that it can easily understand which it applies consistently to all parties. The decision rule may not be infinitely wise but at least people can know where they stand. At present 1RR violations are handled well (in my opinion). Interaction bans could be treated as consistently as 1RRs if we decided to do so. The fact that the Russavia case drags on a long time with no result is not a compliment to the wisdom of AE. (It was filed at 16:45 on October 26, but the vibes are that this case could go to Arbcom if AE has no idea what to do).

It is possible that the Russavia case could be closed in such a way that it affirms a rule which could be used in the future. Clearly Russavia has violated his interaction ban deliberately. The most notorious edit is this one, where he reverts Volunteer Marek, violating his interaction ban, while stating:

reverting my disruptive stalkers -- neither editor has edited article b4 -- yet here they are -- these stalkers are interested in one thing only -- pushing my buttons and taking me to WP:AE -- it has been explained -- also ALL edits mine reverted.

Russavia has a long-term pattern of behavior which results in frequent skirmishes at AE. We would like to damp this down, while allowing him to contribute to articles. One way to do this would be to enforce the interaction bans very consistently and with escalating blocks if necessary. All parties would get the same treatment. Let me know if you are willing to discuss this idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo montage without a license

Sorry for the disturbance, I just wanted to mention that the correct photo is replaced by Greyhood for copy photo montage without summary or liscence. I would be grateful if you can intervene in this case because the image without appropriate summary and license will be deleted by the rules. In this way, the correct image is eliminated unnecessary and wrong will be deleted. Thanks for understanding!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Email sent to Arbcom

Hi FPaS, thank you for looking at, what I believe is, Biophys' following of my edits, hounding, and using a one-way interaction ban as a weapon against me in numerous way. I have sent an email to Arbcom, and have posted a copy of it at User_talk:Russavia#Copy_of_email_sent_to_Arbcom. I am letting you know only due to the AE request still being open. I don't know where I should be posting any evidence given the open clarification request. Any comment, advice, etc welcome. Cheers Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy

Thank you for putting an end to the activities of User:FidelDrumbo, aka User:Skipsievert. There are currently a lot of technocracy-related redirects which this editor created, which could be cleaned up to avoid clutter and confusion. They are Urbanate, Technate, Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy Incorporated, and Monad (Technocracy). Would you be willing to delete these please? Johnfos (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Euzen

Euzen's insistence on POV-pushing on Anastas Byku (as usual about the bio's ethnicity label) has become worse than the Mercurio Bua case. Since April 2011 he's been trying to make the same edits he was trying to insert on Mercurio Bua. At first he added a {{dubious}} tag even though it was sourced and as the months passed by his editing became more and more tendetious to the point of calling Aigest's revert of his latest label vandalism. That being said his talkpage activity ranges from some users find more important (and annoying) the fact that Greeks were born in what today is Albania. to remarks about his perception of your stance No question, FutureP is willing to offer his assistance.. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Can you please keep an eye on this page as it keeps on reverting back to FYROM not to Macedonia Makedonija (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:98.234.208.200

You previously "indefinitely topic-banned from all articles and discussions relating to the topic of Ukrainians" User:98.234.208.200 for edits such as this: [23]. After being blocked several times, the user has resurfaced and is trying to insert the exact same paragraph to several articles. I've left the user a warning but based on the history I don't expect it to do much good. Perhaps you could do something about this? Thanks. TDL (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Odalar mosque & Paspates

Hallo FutPerf

I am asking you a favour: I just wrote an article about the Odalar Mosque in Istanbul, and I know that the building was represented in the work of Paspates, but unfortunately it has not been uploaded in commons. Can you reach the uploader of Paspates (he is a greek wikipedian) and gently ask him if it is possible for him to upload the engraving of the mosque on commons under Category:Byzantinai meletai topographikai? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

PM

Dear Fut.Perf.

We were discussing personal matters between us, about a topic which is outside Wikipedia. I can translate that for you, but only in "private". Sorry for your inconvenience. Csendesmark (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on Omen1229's topic ban

Fut Prof - Could you clarify something for me? Does the topic ban include article discussion pages, user talk pages, and/or the user's own talk page? Does it apply when another editor asks a question related to the area of the topic ban? The reason I ask is that one of the two folks whom Omen1229 reported has been discussing the topic on Omen1229's talk page. I'd like to know if he should be told to bugger off or not. It seems rather like rubbing salt in a wound to me.--v/r - TP 15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I meant it as including talk edits, since much of the disruption involving this set of editors appears to be about quarrelsome behaviour in talk, and I think I said "all edits", not just "all article edits". But I wouldn't want to be quick in enforcing this through blocks on the guy himself if he has been answering an opponent on his own talkpage. I agree the other guy should certainly be nudged away from his talkpage too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--v/r - TP 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image license issue

See File:CGWoodson_roadside_marker.jpg, I'm not sure but I think the license on that image is wrong. Aren't works of art, which I think this is, copyrightable? PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged it with DFU. Please review. PumpkinSky talk 12:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of editor done way too quickly

As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism_campaign_involving_fake_references there appears to be information that editors did not take into account in their rush to indef an editor based upon one-sided information. Whilst that information may have been presented in good faith, it would be pertinent to wait for the editor in question to comment. They have now done so on their talk page, and their comments have merit. You are getting this message as you have supported their block on the thread in question, and I think you should go back and read their comments and reconsider your position. It is disappointing that too many people jumped the gun on this occasion in condemning the editor in question. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I have brought up your name there in connection with a user named Jabbsworth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Pantherskin

Can you clarify if this is an AE block under the WP:DIGWUREN case? If so you should enter it in the case log (though only the first year can be an AE block, while the rest is a regular block). Also leaving an appropriate notice on the user's talk is good so he knows if he can use the regular {{unblock}} template or must do an AE appeal. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually feel it's all too important in this case, especially since he hasn't commented at all on the matter yet. I trust no admin is likely to unblock him at this stage, but if he has some good explanation to offer, I'd have no problem about having an unblock request handled in the "normal" way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/98.234.208.200

Hey. I noticed you had previously blocked 207.239.114.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion. That IP was just listed at the case above, so I was wondering if you could comment on who was evading the block. If it's for private eyes only, you can email me about it. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if he ever had an account. I think 98.234.208.200 was the IP I first noticed him under, but he seems to have been at it with different IPs even before that, for years (e.g. [24]. I slapped a DIGWUREN topic ban on the 98.* IP, so all subsequent ones can be treated as ban-evading socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI

I asked T. Canens to give you a shout. Thanks. [25] — A. Kupicki (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded aspartame COI accusations

The initial instigator has resumed the COI accusations, from a new, currently accepted account, Jabbsworth (talk · contribs). Despite claiming no editing of aspartame articles because of editors with "intense hidden COI issues"[26], there are continuing unsupported accusations[27][28] and is using the talk pages for advocacy[29]. I am contacting you to request that the formal warning be issued, as it was to other editors per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy. —Novangelis (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, direct accusations of paid editing: [30]. —Novangelis (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for going the extra step and digging up a prior definitive warning which I both forgot and missed. In response to your inquiry about the necessity of check-user, I will provide my opinion. I do not believe that there is another account in existence. The previous time there was one sleeper (Hill-Mitchelson (talk · contribs)) that I suspected [31]. My gut says that there are no alternate accounts this time, but the history of having a sleeper remains. I am not going to profess expertise in determining "magic pixie dust" from appropriate use, but I hope this brief history is of some use to you.Novangelis (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Jabb, politely I might add, to please remove these accusations. I had nothing to do with the SPI until my name was mentioned. I then arrived there and asked that the accusations be removed. If I can ask, what can be done about this? I consider this to be a pretty clear personal attack. Thanks for your time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He's been topic-banned, so he won't be making these claims again any time soon (or if he does, he'll be blocked). I wouldn't bother too much about the earlier postings – the context clearly shows them for what they are worth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are probably correct, thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. D. E. Mophon

Just letting you know I unblocked User:Mr. D. E. Mophon. Initial block was quite reasonable, of course. Seems no point dragging things out though. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Skanderbeg question

Hi FP - Been a while since we least talked, and I hope all is well with you. I wonder if you could take a look at this edit (and the few preceding it)? I don't think it's worth edit-warring over or dragging to ANI; just looking for a second opinion. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I imagine there are more problems there than my quick glance at the lead would catch, and I've been away for a fairly long time. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Scarmeganolinious is a sock of Notesenses, so nobody would be edit-warring when reverting him. Of course Notesenses was a sock himself, so wouldn't it be better to block the whole IP range if it has no other active users?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this, ZjarriRrethues - I probably wouldn't have seen it :) . I've restored the deleted info, though it can easily be removed if you or FP think it's in the wrong place. Thanks again, Kafka Liz (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A new sock(User:Grsalmonerous and he started using IPs[32] again too. Also {{you've got mail}} --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just saw your posts, my IP has different ending and I am not editing or know in Greek music at all, my experience is exclusivelly only on ancient history, not in instruments I hope you can find it out, however thank you... --Grsalmonerous (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Ok, you are right, I have finished. Thanks for your action.Borgatya (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A question

About the article Beatrice of Portugal can I do «undo» again or not? And I can put the article Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal to delete again or this is forbbiden? I confess I'm ignorant on this things. Jorge alo (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Beatrice is currently protected, so you won't technically be able to revert for the next few hours. Even after that, you'd be still in continued breach of the three-revert rule, so I'd strongly recommend you wait until the discussion has come to a clear result, or let somebody else do the revert if one has to be done. At the Miguel article, if you still feel it should be deleted, please nominate it for a regular deletion discussion (AFD), not for Speedy deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, note that the Miguel article is in discussion and Jorge has not proven his arguments so do not encourage him to nominate it for regular delation because this action is attack against me. If you are fair judge, you must judge equally. If Jorge nominates the article for deletion, I will delete his action, so please prevent the quarrel, and do not allow him impermissible means and do not strengthen the debate between us. Jorge would nominate for deletion, if the discuss had finished, but the right of nomination for discussion might be acted only by a neutral person. So his question also accentuates the tension. If he were right, he would not want to use infamous techniques. He have not confuted my statement and he cannot confute because my sources say he existed. What is the smaller mistake: to delete or to preserv? Even if his existence is disputed, the deletion is wrong solution, I do not understand Jorge and his supporter's ruthlessness. Thanks for your attention. Please act fair play.Borgatya (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, let´s wait some time to see what happens. I'm not doing this for any personal reason, it's only question of the historical true. Your sugestion of an article discussing his existence has a big «against»: there is nothing reliable to sustain it, even as a «maybe». Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal

Would you please do me a favor and instruct Jorge alo that it's not a good idea to revert an admin's decline of a speedy, based on things such as the adminshopping policy? I'd do it myself, but given the atmosphere here, it might get taken as sour grapes. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Image Removal?

Can you please explain to me how File:Kate and Wills engagement.jpg met the deletion requirements for "F2: Corrupt or empty file, or file description page for a file on Commons"? The file did not appear to be corrupt or empty and the description clearly had a non-free image fair use rationale, so it was not a description page for a file on Commons. I am confused as to why it was deleted, as the image came from Buckingham Palace's Flickr (as you had previously suggested), and therefore did not violate a copyright of a photo service ("WP: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")") as had previously been problematic, so I am really confused as to why you have deleted the image. Could you please clarify for me? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, must have been a mistake or technical error on my side. For some reason, this morning, I could see only the image description page and not the image itself, so it was looking to me as if you had recreated only a description page but not actually made an upload. Don't know why that happened. I've restored this new version now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, that makes sense. Thank you for restoring the image. --Zoeydahling (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Onufri

I don't know if you can speak any Slavic language, but if you do you might want to read some parts of the sources Antid. added. [33]. The Argitis denonym is explained in one of the sources [34] and btw his paintings are characterized as post-Byzantine-Baroque.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course the whole quotes weren't provided because for example Folic's full quote is a semi-polemicist section, in which Folic accuses Albanian scholars of "Illyrianizing" Serbian medieval castles as they did with everything else like "Onufri, who wasn't an Albanian but a Greek".--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove whatever you think doesn't meet RS. I'm personally at 3R right now. I do think it may be a good idea to de-emphasize the whole ethnicity thing in the lead – you know, classify people by what they are famous for, not by their ethnicity, and all that jazz; so "painter active in Albania" etc would work well for me in the lead sentence. There should be a time for getting Euzen topic-banned at last, though; he's really become a nuisance. BTW, "post-Byzantine-Baroque"? Last time I looked, the baroque era started only around 1600. But then, last time I looked, Berat also wasn't in Epirus, or so it seemed to me, so what do I know? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The term Baroque in this case is a mild anachronism as he was influenced by the Venetian school, which also influenced the Baroque movement. Geographically whether Berat is in Epirus or not depends on the definition of Epirus(if you're inclusive enough Shkodër is its northern border heh). As it was certain that Euzen would get involved in "ethnic" disputes I gave him the ARBMAC warning[35], so the disruption he caused will be dealt with. Onufri was a quite important painter of the southwestern Balkans, so agreeably per MOS we should probably not use ethnicity labels on the lead section.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(Please see my questions regarding your removal of the 1) information about Ottoman Empire, 2) information about Venetian archives and correct reading of the inscription and 3) information about some scholars' opinion of Onufri's Greek ethnicity, and read the additional explanation provided by Euzen). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't like talkback notes on my usertalk about article discussions. To the extent I wish to participate in that discussion, I will be following it on my own. There is, in particular, no need to bug me with repeated talkback templates for the same set of questions when I answered them already, just because you are not satisfied with the answer. Also, please learn to put your talkpage postings in the correct sections. And finally, spare me any talk about "explanations provided by Euzen", because I am not likely to consider anything that particular editor does or says as a good-faith and constructive contribution. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dahn

Even after you said "enough" Dahn made this edit because "he can't help it" (incidentally in my report I mentioned I called him an "attention whore"). You told me "to take a deep breath" but if he keeps harassing me with insults ("If anything, I am sorry I ever did try to engage this person in serious conversation, he's just not accustomed to that by the looks of it."), what exactly should I do to make him stop? Daizus (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just disengage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did. And he keeps doing it: "the same obnoxious string of accusations these gentlemen have concocted between them". What else can I do? I also noticed Dahn was put under a formal Digwuren notice for "edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" three years ago, thus I have little hope I can ever benefit from a neutral approach from him. Can I ask for a restriction, so that we are never allowed to interact or otherwise discuss each other's person? Daizus (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:S.Ali.Haghshenas.jpg certification

Hi, I'm a Persian Wikipedia admin. Regard to your last edit in the above file, one of the users asks me to help him to rescue the file from deletion. I wanted him to prove me the copyright situation of that and he linked me a certification that showed the image is in PD [as I verified]. The reference website has explicitly notified that its works are in PD. I translate the certification for you:

Iran Taekwondo Association is the creator of entire website's works, pursuant to decree 850/369 of the Central Council of Iranian Taekwondo Association, the institute accepts to republish the whole contents of this site including pictures, news, events, etc fully or in summary by public domain.

So please verify and remove the copyright tag if you didn't see any other problems with it anymore. Thanks beforehand ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: We requested the website to translate the above message and you can see the English permission here. ●Mehran ^Debate● 16:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

email

You got one from me. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

change the name

I want to change the name of the user. But it been deleted. Please provide my thanks to them.--Wittaya.kitka (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not quite sure what you want. But I think you figured out yourself what was wrong here [36]. Your request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple is now listed correctly and I'm sure it will soon be fulfilled. Please let me know if there is anything more I can help you with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I want to change the user name is unique because of this name in many other names that might cause misunderstanding.thank you--Wittaya.kitka (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Assistance with closing renaming discussions

Hi Future Perfect. I saw on the Senkaku Island talk page that you were willing to close the RfC when appropriate. This is about a different article. Over at the Republic of China article there was a discussion about renaming a bunch of ROC/Taiwan related articles, after the article on the People's Republic of China was moved to "China". For reference, the discussion about renaming the ROC/Taiwan articles started at Talk:Republic of China/Archive 16. A new discussion was started at Talk:Republic of China#New Proposal.

As far as I can see, the first renaming discussion (on Archive 16) did not achieve a consensus. It is worth remembering, of course, that admins can take a view as to the outcome of a discussion based on the opinions, not pure number of votes. This is how (I understand) the PRC page was moved to "China". A panel of three admins decided the arguments in favour of the move were superior to those that advocated it staying the same. However, I'm not asking you to do that. And in any event, as far as I can see, the more recent renaming discussion did achieve a consensus even if there was a modest minority who objected to the proposal.

This is why I'm contacting you, because I saw at least one comment in a thread saying "what consensus?", as if they were refusing to accept the proposal was successful. Even if it's not entirely necessary. I think an admin close would help clarify where the discussion is and how editors can proceed, without others jumping in and crying foul. Indeed perhaps it might be appropriate for another panel of three admins to look into this? Thanks for your help in advance. John Smith's (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I spoke to NW, and he's a bit unsure on the arguments/issues to deal with it unless no one else can help. Would you be able to take things forward, even if you wanted to be part of a group of three closing admins? Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. There is actually no formal renaming proposal to "close" at the moment and no need for a "group of three closing admins". Nor has an RfC been filed. Please see my comments to John Smith's here: Talk:Republic_of_China#Closing_request. However, as an involved editor on that page, I think we would certainly welcome a fresh set of eyes to tell us where consensus stands and where it is headed. There is a modest proposal by Readin at the top of the page that might just have enough consensus, but that proposal is explicitly not a move proposal. There is also a more aggressive proposal by Chipmunkdavis aimed at implementing Readin's proposal with page moves, but it is not posted as a formal page move request and involves ongoing discussion by a small group of involved editors. I think John Smith's concern above has to do with whether there is consensus for Readin's proposal, which is a necessary assumption for further discussion as in Chipmunkdavis's proposal to go forward, but to reiterate, Readin's proposal is not a move request. There is quite a bit of material to read through, so no worries if you have to give it a miss. --Jiang (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello both. Thanks for contacting me about this, but I'm afraid I probably won't find much time for looking into this for the next two or three days at least, so if you are in need of somebody helping with calling a consensus on something, you might be better off asking somebody else. Sorry I can't be of more help right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted image

You deleted an image discussed here. I've never seen it live as it was quickly speedied, so I cannot comment on what might have been wrong with the FUR, but I strongly believe this image represents a rare topic we have no free image of. I'd appreciate it if you could restore it and list it at WP:IFD instead of speedying, so that the community can have its say. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for Giuseppe Rava. The correct approach to such articles is to prod them first, and AfD them later. Again, I might have had something to say or even attempted to expand the article if I was given enough time to do so. Please restore, prod or AFD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Women carrying casket of Hatice Firat.jpg was a commercial news agency image. Those cases get speedied under WP:CSD#F7b. There's no scope for discussion about them. It also quite clearly failed NFCC#8. Your argument expressed earlier boils down to "we want an image for the sake of having an image; we haven't got any other, so we want this one". Given the fact you are a former admin, I'm surprised you can't see yourself how weak that is. (As for the FUR, the only relevant fact that's worth noting is that it contained the blindly copied boilerplate "Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its significance are the object of discussion in the article", which, as so often, was just plain false.)

As for the other guy, it was an unsourced, two-sentence sub-stub about a non-notable book illustrator. The only information it contained was a claimed birth date (unsourced BLP content) and the statement that he makes illustrations for popular military history publications and similar things. Apparently the type of cheap kitsch that readers of Osprey Publishing volumes are fond of [37]. The article had been sitting around essentially unchanged with nothing but a few cosmetic tweaks since 2006. There was no independent sourcing and no assertion of notability, so it evidently fell under WP:CSD#A7. If you have anything more about this person to base a case of notability on, you are of course free to create the article afresh. But I'd be surprised if this type of work had ever drawn any critical attention in reliable published sources for its artistic value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect...

Hello Future Perfect.

With all due respect, I'm afraid I must correct you on your edit summary on the Byzantine Empire entry ("rv addition by sock of banned user Deucalionite: undue weight"). Ignoring the allegations of sockpuppetry, the additions I made (Heisenberg) were to be shown solely in the annotation and meant to complement Robert Byron's "Triple Fusion" of Byzantine culture. Also, Heisenberg's "Staat und Gesellschaft des Byzantinischen Reiches" provides a beautifully succinct summary (in beautifully succinct German) of Byzantine civilization, which benefits the average reader. But given that your removal of the additions I made were done in good faith (and perhaps for the betterment of the "Stable Version"), I shall not reinsert the sourced content you removed.

I wish you all the best and please continue making good faith edit contributions. Thank you. No. 108 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to wish you and your family Happy Holidays.

How do you...

Hello.

How do you remove most of the "file history" except the current reversion in an image file, I.E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dark_Knight.jpg I'm trying to remove the file history for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dark_knight_rises_poster.jpg

Thanks. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikindia24x7

I see that you blocked this user indefinitely for copyvios. A lot of the user's images are still here, though. Did you deliberately not delete those because you thought they were legit, or should they be nominated for deletion too? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The ones I left had a consistent pattern of exif data, subject matter and overall (low) quality, so I figured they were likely to be self-made. But feel free to nuke anything you find suspicious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I still have Liancourt Rocks on my watch list. If you run into complaints that you are currently an involved because of your edits on the 2 and 3 December, let me know and I'll take a look.-- PBS (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

GongLi

I can't join the discussion on that OTHER site because I have no account there. So, I will address you here. I used the image from Gong Li's page. I had nothing to do with uploading it. It said Creative Commons, Share-Alike on it... delete it if you want to. I don't care. I joined this website to read articles on my Kindle, not violate copyrights. Thanks. Quandrax Haxx | (talk) (Twitter) 21:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Kissing Girls 1: Young Lesbians in Love.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lukas Dobe

You might want to look into locking down Lukas D. Dobe - he tried creating that alternate two years ago. He also appears to be currently editing from the ZalumoFilms account as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War/Sockpuppet

Would you take a look at this gentleman?-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sulumore
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rolusty33

He never documented any of his edits, and reverted 6 times in a row usin g 2 accts.--Galassi (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what, the authorship of T+F d minor is disputed? I thought the precise story of its composition was rather well documented ... [38] (sorry, couldn't resist. It's a bit late where I am now; too late to look into a sock accusation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well TFdm is generally taken as spurious by professionals these days. It sounds to have been written ca.1765...... KSingers are amazing as always.--Galassi (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! Hans Adler 00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my image in "University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City" page?

Good morning. I've known that you had deleted my images in University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City. Those image are mine. I took those pictures by myself (by Canon IXY digital 22015). University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City is my university, where I am a lecturer. I uploaded some of them on my faculty - Faculty of Political Studies (http://www.llct.ueh.edu.vn), my student club - CYM Group (http://www.cymgroup.vn) and our Student Union (http://www.youth.ueh.edu.vn). That's why I uploaded those images on Wikipedia under license "Own work". Can you recovery those images? Or I will re-upload them? Thanks for you help. Sincerely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Sophia (talk • contribs)

It seems highly uncommon that the same person should have access to uploading their own photographs to the websites of three distinct organizations like this. Your copyright claim appeared prima facie implausible, especially since you also claimed even the university's logo was your own work and copyrighted by you (almost impossible). Given the circumstances, I'd have to insist that you follow the instructions given at {{Di-no permission-notice}} to provide evidence of copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN reinsertion

When was the original material added at [39]? I can't see because I'm not admin. If it's within the checkuser window, 3-months if I'm not mistaken, then a CU request should be made to see if it's RAN who introduced the material. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It was back in December 2009. I also doubt the checkusers would publish check results on something like this, given their reluctance to link named accounts with their IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Notesenses

He's socking as IP user again[40](wouldn't it be better to block the whole range if there are no active users than to deal with him every couple of weeks?)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please

Be more careful with edit summaries like this. You know, uncontrollable laughter can be hazardous to someone's health. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ξέρεις το ανέκδοτο, έτσι; Συζητούσε ένας Κριτηκός με έναν Άραβα. Λέει ο Άραβας: "Δεν το ήξερες; Σε μας στην Αίγυπτο σκάψανε κάτω απ' τις Πυραμίδες, και βρήκανε καλώδια! Γιατί είχανε τηλέφωνα!" "Α", λέει ο Κριτικός, "αυτό δεν είναι τίποτα. Σε μας, στην Κρίτη, σκάψαμε κάτω απ' την Κνωσσό, και ξέρεις τι βρήκαμε; Δεν βρήκαμε πράμα. Γιατί σ'εμάς είχανε ήδη τσινητά!" – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't say "LOL" because it would be an understatement. Thank you for these great jokes. This kind of laughs are hard to come by. :) Take care and best of the Season to you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use question

Since you obviously seem to have more expertise with fair use questions, would you mind if I was to ask you for advice when it comes to fair use issues in the future? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Image of Curtis Johnson, Jr

Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please know that, in light of the mission of the Wikipedia Project, your handling of the Curtis Johnson image license situation could have been augmented with friendly suggestions and advice. For your information, the rights to upload the file and use it on the page in question are now explicit, and with proper licensure. It is also with great dismay to note your making of a blanket statement not to "reintroduce" an image that is under review for proper licensure association. I hope that in the future you will be more helpful to those of us contributors who aim to follow the rules, and need a little assistance in doing so. Judging by the other comments on your talk page, it is most unfortunate that you probably already know this. In any case, if you need further information to validate the re-release and re-uploading of this image with the proper licensure, you may contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Leroy E. Brown (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

whistles...

it quacks. Alarbus (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, quacking is discernible, but who exactly does it quack like? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, wait, got it:

• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• User talk:71.191.2.38

He's already topic-banned. Feel free to revert anything he does on sight, without regard to 3RR. Ask for semiprotection if he persists. It's a highly volatile IP range, so blocks won't probably help much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Smatprt. Their year-long topic ban expired. He was (presumably) evading your block. The topic ban needs a renewal. Alarbus (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But I don't really think the 96.*/71.* IP is Smatprt. Smatprt is a lot more sophisticated and doesn't use this mindblowingly direct tendentious approach (such as, simply stating as a plain fact that Hamlet is a work by De Vere). The anon has been active in this vein since at least the beginning of the year, possibly longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've no real involvement, so they all seem alike, to me. I noticed this whole mess by seeing template edits. God luck. Alarbus (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Kosta Nadj

Do i have to tell you personal that page i link is connected with book of same title, book is 29 old and there is picture witch i scanned how to find author when its form book? And last all JNA personal goes to the template of protection form SFRJ ^{Snake bgd} 17:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid your English is incomprehensible. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to say that you wanna license form book that is over 30 years old and that authors are made it in state that no longer exist. I dont know what to say except its foolish thing and since there is licence tag Yugoslavia use it but you dont care since its smart to destroy someones work rather then to improved. ^{Snake bgd} 16:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to read that license tag you are trying to use. It just doesn't cover this case. It is a misunderstanding that all products of the communist era in Yugoslavia are in the public domain. They are not. This book is still copyright by the authors, the publisher, or their heirs, just as any book published thirty years ago in some other country would be. You might make a case for using the photograph under fair use, but not as a public domain work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Really you seriously dont know who publish books in SFRJ this book thats published is made by group of autors all members of Yugoslav Peoples Army therefor they are under tag SFRJ. I lived in this country all material was under close surveillance of regime is that good enough for you to remove that tag. ^{Snake bgd} 23:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. You are mistaken. There were copyrights back in the SFRJ, believe it or not, and these copyrights are still in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Strozzi-Heckler image

Hi. You have tagged the image I uploaded for deletion. I searched for a free image of this person and was unable to find one, so I requested an image for use on WP from his company and was given this with permission to use it. Why is this not suitable for use? --SympatheticResonance (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I noted your concern of user LAz17's engagement in "ethnic wrangling" and wanted to make you aware of his recent involvement in the ethnic makeup of the Yugoslav partisans. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet Shakespeare Ban

Thanks loads or banning the annoying IP, but why do his comments on the Talk page have to be deleted? I've seen other editors banned before, but I've never seen their comments on the Talk page removed? (I am talking about your edit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamlet&curid=46186&diff=466525144&oldid=466518504 ). Is there a WP protocol/rule that justifies this? Regards--WickerGuy (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the topic ban includes edits in all namespaces. I wouldn't say edits to talk pages have to be deleted, but they certainly can. To avoid having talkpages cluttered with disruptive argument, I'd recommend the block-revert-ignore approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to watch your page to catch this reply. Are we fairly certain the current IP is the same as prior users? I'm just asking, not trying to mount any kind of major challenge.--WickerGuy (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think when you compare the style of these recent IPs with the ones that were active back in May or so, and see the whole chain of them that have been active on these articles in between, it's pretty certain it's the same person. And it's all the same ISP (Verizon, if I remember correctly), both the ones that start with 71.* and the ones with 96.*. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Community S03E10.png

Hey I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but you removed the above file from the article under WP:NFCC#8 and then tagged the image for deletion under orphaned fair-use image. That doesn't seem right to me as the image is intended for use within an article. If tagged for deletion, it should be at WP:FFD with an avenue for contesting the deletion. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 09:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I did in fact mean it this way, and it's quite a correct way of doing it. When I see a poor non-free image used in an article, removing it is the obvious WP:SOFIXIT way of correcting things. And once it's removed, deletion for being orphaned becomes a simple necessity, so tagging it that way is just the obvious thing to do. Of course, there is an avenue for you to contest the deletion: you just need to reintroduce it in the article; then it's no longer orphaned. Then, I'd have to take it to FFD. In that case, we'd be both wasting lots of each other's time arguing, and the image would still be deleted in the end, as has happened in hundreds of precedent cases at FFD. Believe me, these kinds of episode screenshots inserted in infoboxes merely for the sake of having an image, without analytical commentary and without a meaningful FUR, always end up deleted one way or another, so you can save yourself a lot of time and stress by just letting the speedy process run its course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I've put additional explanation in the file page and will re-insert the image. Btw, I've written dozens of other similar articles and inserted non-free images where I see fit, so this is not a case of me naively adding a decorative image. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 09:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, sigh. Okay, your choice. So I've taken it to FFD. Its fate will be the same as that of dozens and dozens others I've had to nominate in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see why the image shouldn't be there now. I hope you understand that I prodded for an explanation in good faith. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 10:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands RfC

The RfC on Talk:Senkaku Islands technically expired today. There was one new commenter yesterday, but it's one of only 2 in the last 10 days. As such, it may be time to close the RfC. You and NuclearWarfare (who I'm also leaving a message for) expressed interest in closing the RfC as neutral admins. If you have time, could you take a look and see if a formal closing statement is appropriate? I don't know if you want to work together, or even form one of the recently popular "triumverates"--I leave that up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So there are only two decisions that we need to make here, I think. First, do we close the discussion as "leave article where it is currently titled" or do we leave the discussion open for a little while longer to see if we can attract more comments? Second, do we use discretionary sanctions to make the discussion binding for any length of time, and if yes, for how long? Thoughts? NW (Talk) 19:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Another content dispute/Eastern Europe

Whould you assist on Slavic Neopaganism? There is an editor unhappy with less than serene NPOV on the subject, and he has been deleting refs, or tagging them as "unreliable". I tried to warned him.--Galassi (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is getting weird - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dchmelik. --Galassi (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Another potentianl Digvuren

Would you check if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GlaubePL is a sock of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pawe%C5%825586 ? --Galassi (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

FPAS?

Easier to ask than to search your archives - can you confirm that FPAS (talk · contribs · count) is an alternate account of yours? I didn't see anything on your userpage. I don't want to block is as an impostor account if it really is you. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I already blocked it as apparently a spoof/compromised account, and was just heading here to let you know. If it isn't, you can definitely unblock it, but it was making edits very unlike you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Future perfect at sunrise - FWIW if it is, and if you don't want to have notices on your userpage then perhaps you should edit the userpage of the alternate accounts with your main Future Perfect at Sunrise account when you are redirecting them here. Just another way of letting the rest of us know.  ;) Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I had started to speedy User:FPAS as a hoax but decided to wait and see if this really was your account or not. Calabe1992 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Peter Sprague (w twin-neck, by Michael Oletta)-6 11.png

Re. File:Peter Sprague (w twin-neck, by Michael Oletta)-6 11.png... I have forwarded the author's permission to <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> per instructions in the email I received from MediaWiki Mail. Please remove the for-deletion tag from that image file. Thank you. Swamissurfer (talk) 7:06 am, 14 December 2011, Wednesday (14 days ago) (UTC−7)

I moved this comment over from your userpage, apologies for the intrusion.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Poeticbent's block

Since you blocked Poeticbent (talk · contribs) with the justification "Abusing multiple accounts", could you kindly tell me what kind of abuse was there? Neither Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poeticbent nor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loosmark contain any admin-confirmed examples of abuse or disruption. Could you kindly show me, preferably with diffs, how Poeticbent (or his socks) have been abusing or disrupting the project? As far as I understand Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, just having (and editing from) several accounts is discouraged, but is not an automatic banning offense. For that, we need to demonstrate "inappropriate uses", and I am not seeing such a demonstration on the linked pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I can inform you that Poeticbent is quite able to take care of his case himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Kosovo#Merge_with_Republic_of_Kosovo.3F.
Message added 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:FAB P-3AM Orion.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FAB_P-3AM_Orion.jpg I have posted more information. check. Dafranca77 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A mistake indeed, thanks for correcting. Macedonian (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Riaz (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faridpur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Woe90i's talk page.
Message added 18:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk^Woe90i 18:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Schizogeny" Image

Hey, I just wanted to explain the "Schizogeny" image. This image illustrates the climax, explains how the main antagonist meets her end, and enlightens the viewer on the filming style. You note WP:NFCC#8 as reason why it should be removed, however, as per my examples, both on this page, the article page, and the images page, the image is clearly with in the confines of WP:NFCC#8 and is therefore fair use. In addition, I added a better rationale for the image description so that it is pertinent. I'm sorry if my edits seem hot-headed, but I would appreciate it if you would stop reverted my addition. Lastly, although not that important, all of the other X-Files pages have images, and the removal of this image throws the aesthetic value off significantly (please don't cite "Other stuff exists," I understand. I just thought I'd say it).--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding File:Representative Jo Jordan.jpg

Hi there,

Could you actually delete this image for me so I can upload it again but to Wikimedia Commons? I realized I think it's a free image, not a fair use image, as it's not actually copyrighted. Thanks, obentomusubi 23:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Hyacinth#File:Monteverdi Lamento d'Arianna dominant seventh.png

Image is correct. D wouldn't make sense in that B♭ is an upper leading-tone to A and the second voice already has D. Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No need, simply go to the pages on which it is used. (Benward & Saker (2003), p.201.) Hyacinth (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Kenard-Eugene-Gibbs Photo (Thanks for the Info!)

Hi Future!

Thanks for pointing out that I didn't have the licensing info noted on the photo of Kenard Eugene Gibbs. This is a photo that I received by way of Kenard himself. He does own the copyright to the photo and I added the photographer's name as credit. I also added the Creative Commons Sharalike notification to the page. Let me know if I've covered all of my bases or if more info is still needed :) Thank you for helping me learn to become a more knowledgable contributor! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kenard-Eugene-Gibbs.jpg

Christineokelly (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikinger?

I saw (and reverted) this edit, and it kind of reminded me of you know who. Look like it to you? Syrthiss (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Editorinfo's talk page.
Message added 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hellenism - requires a definition and more that a disambiguation page. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism Editorinfo (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Image Sources

Hi there,

Thanks for reminding me to add the image source! But after a Wikibreak which lasted for several years, I failed to remember how to add sources for the images, nor do I know how to verify the copyright status / license of the images. I shall just post the sources here, and I hope you can help.

Image of the Mosque Image of the Market

Thanks! --Mark Chung (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It's actually quite simple: Everything is presumed to be copyrighted, unless you know of some explicit reason to the contrary, so unless you have seen an explicit statement of "this image is released under the CC-BY-SA license" or the like, better not upload it. The first of the two above has an explicit "all rights reserved", so it's out, and the second has no copyright info at all, so it's also out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Min Ko Naing.jpg

Restore or expect a DRV, since the required two-day waiting period had not expired. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I'm sorry. Longer comment will follow; posting this now so you don't respond to the first comment. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Going to MCQ, I read your comment and observed what you'd said about the autotagging. Somehow I didn't observe the autoreplaceable template — if I had seen it and for some reason had disagreed with it, I wouldn't have left it sitting there as I did in this edit. Thanks for re-deleting. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

your user page on el.wikt

Γεια σου. Ήρθε κάποιος με IP 79.191.251.35 και δημιούργησε τη σελίδα σου στο Βικιλεξικό, γράφοντας διάφορα εις βάρος σου. Διέγραψα τη σελίδα, απλώς αναρωτιέμαι αν θα ήθελες να τη δημιουργήσεις εσύ και μετά να την κλειδώσουμε, σε περίπτωση που αυτός ο κάποιος επιμείνει ... . --Flyax (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ευχαριστώ για την ειδοποίηση. Εκείνος ο 79.* είναι ο "User:Wikinger". Καλύτερο θα'ναι να κρατίσεις την σελίδα κλειδωμένη για να μην δημιουργηθεί. Δεν είναι πολύ πιθανόν να ενεργοποιηθώ εγώ στο ελληνικό wikt ώστε να χρειαστώ δική μου σελίδα εκεί. Ευχαριστώ. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture

It was taken at the performance then cropped on a mobile. Rb360 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Arkoks

I've fully reverted his dodgy photos. Thanks, GiantSnowman 15:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked User:Waldenbg

Most of the Files uploaded by User:Waldenbg have been copyright violations. All of the remaining images "feel" wrong. I can't prove it, but every one seems to be taken with a different camera or from the air and there has been an admission of wrong doing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, that was my thought too. Are there any left now except the two I nominated on Commons? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like most of them have been taken care of since I left the previous message. Somebody else had the same idea. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleting file

If the file which I have uploaded had false copyright, why didn't you fix it? And I don't care to contribute Wikipedia with uploading an image, I was just trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I had no bad faith. Please try using less offensive words. Avatar9n (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't fix it, because it was a copyright violation. It was not just a matter of choosing the right or wrong tag. The thing is that you should never have uploaded it in the first place. What made you think it was okay to take a work that you don't own, and simply invent a license statement for it, when the actual copyright owner had obviously not placed it under that license? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

This is in regard to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boyce_Avenue.jpg The only two images of Boyce Avenue I found that had free commons were too small and blurry http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Boyceavenueperform.jpg The other one was blurry and was already marked for delation on Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alejandro_Manzano_(Boyce_Avenue)_%26_Tyler_Ward.jpg

Could you suggest what I should do next or will the image I posted be acceptable since I gave credit of the image.

Thanks.

(Soren0 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for getting back to me about this. I'm afraid we still won't be able to keep the image, since it's non-free. The crucial criterion is that some new, free image of the band could in principle be created any time. Per our rules at WP:NFC, it doesn't really matter whether such a free image already exists. By the way, since we're at it, could you please also clarify the situation of your older upload File:LonnieValerie1005.jpg? You credited it to somebody from a newspaper, probably a journalist, and at the same time said it was under a free license, but you didn't point to any evidence the newspaper had in fact released it under such conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I called the newspaper up, The Iowa Source, and the lady told me what to put for the image and they released it by have me put the link back to the page of the image. I can get evidence if needed from them via email. I noticed that the page I created for professor Lonnie Gamble was deleted since I listed him being a famous person. I'm not sure if the page can be brought back and listed as a professor instead. If so, I can get evidence that the photo in fact has been released. If the page for Lonnie Gamble can't be brought back, there is no need to keep the image.

Soren0 (talk)

Ah, I see. About the article, it actually was talking about him as a professor at the time it was deleted (somebody had expanded it after you wrote it), but the deletion reason said "No more notable than an average professor. No significant secondary sources. Tagged for notability since November". This was a so-called "proposed deletion", i.e. a process based not on a formal deletion discussion but on the assumption of consensus, so if you insist, I could restore it for you any time. Only, you'd probably risk somebody else taking it for a deletion debate again fairly soon. About the image, thanks for making that effort. If the newspaper is willing to release it and you wish to keep the image around, you could ask them to send a brief permission statement to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If I decided to bring the page back, like you said it might get taken down again for deletion so let's leave it as it is. I created the page a while back for my professor and to learn how to create a wikipedia page. I guess there is no need to keep the image since there is no page for the image to be placed. Thanks again - Soren0 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Doon School Social Service Image

Hi there, how do you propose I solve the issue with the aforementioned image which you speedily deleted? Any kind of help is welcome. Can you put it back if possible? Merlaysamuel (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid since it's a commercial AP photograph, and moreover since it's just a generic, easily replaceable photograph of some kids in an nondescript school setting, there's no way we can use it. If you want a picture of some boys sitting at a desk and smiling, you'll need to go to a school and take one yourself. – Also, please don't remove FFD tags, as you did at File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Alright, I understand what you're saying. But this is an authentic photograph taken inside the school. It says on AP WEbsite: Doon School. Moreover, on their website they say it's allowed to use for editorial content. So what's the problem?

Also, I do apologise for removing the tag but please understand that Nehru image is an important one (historically significant to the school) It's almost a hundred years old so how can someone get the copywright? I urge you to do something about it. It's my earnest request. Also, accept my apologies. Can you help, sir? Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you "apologize" and say you "understand" what I'm saying, but at the same moment you simply re-upload the same file? I told you there is no way we can use it, period. You need to learn to listen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The apology was for removing the tag. Can you help me regarding Nehru image :'( ? I still don't understand the problem with it, to confess.

Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is simple. That picture is either in the public domain or it isn't. If it's in the public domain, it's fine and we can use it. But you didn't claim it was, at first, so I have no way of figuring out whether it might be. That's up to you to demonstrate. It's likely to be in the public domain if it was first published (not just made!) before 1941; to demonstrate that, you'd have to point to the exact bibliographic information of the first publication. – As long as it's not in the public domain, it's copyrighted. And in that case, we can't use it under the criteria of WP:NFC. It doesn't matter how important the event depicted was in the history of the school. What matters is how important the visual presence of the image is in order to help us understand the event. It is not important, because the event can easily be described in words: "Nehru visited Doon School". The image conveys no encyclopedic information over and above this simple sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad about files

I deleted it, notice it was wrong. Sorry. Robbie2448 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nehru image for Doon School

Please take a look at the revised fair-use rationale for File:Nehru in Kashmir House, Doon School.JPG and remove the deletion banner. I will be very grateful. Thank you. Merlaysamuel (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that revised rationale is complete and utter nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I give up. Do what you wish. But it'll be great if you can somehow save it. Many thanks for your help anyway.

Merlaysamuel (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The image is not even violating any Copyright laws!!

Merlaysamuel (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
Message added 14:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 14:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Image of Pramukh Swami Maharaj

Hi, I recently noticed you placed a notice on File:Pramukh Swami Maharj.jpeg regarding issues with the file's license. I recently moved the file to File: Pramukh Swami.jpg with the correct license and permission necessary, but was hoping to have the original file deleted to avoid confusion. I was hoping you could help me with this task.

Thank you

^The World 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not having a "revert war"

Seeing as how my attempts to resolve the conflict with the user discretely are getting interrupted, I will be making a formal report and requesting that he be removed as admin for improper conduct.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless. Your conflict over your block is on de-wiki. This is en-wiki. We have no jurisdiction over what goes on in the other projects. If you want to challenge a block on de-wiki, you need to do that there. You probably won't succeed though, because from the little I saw you were clearly blocked for a valid reason: your German is simply too poor to contribute usefully there, and your contributions – piss-poor German combined with naive tendentiousness – were objectively harmful both to article content and to discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're being extremely rude, but that aside, there was still no justification. There was already another user who was addressing the issue, and then this guy decided to arbitrarily get involved, despite the fact that a solution had already been worked out.

• He was a German,
• Who banned a Russian mixed race German,
• Who is married to quarter Jew,
• And then he deleted the user page that says I am half Russian.
• This was also in response to objecting to the myth that Germans are totally victims of WWII, which they love to see themselves as.

But I will drop the issue.

Anonyma Mädel (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mrsafety.jpg

Hello. You put a note on a file I uploaded that it was replaceable and so wasn't fair use. So, I uploaded an (own work) image to Commons with the same file name, hoping to have the original replaced, but it's still there. Is there any way you could just delete the image that's under fair use - would this mean the commons version under the same filename would come up on the articles instead? I hope you know what I mean. Here's a link to the new image. Thanks in advance. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for providing the free alternative. You were right; the presence of a locally uploaded file will have the effect of masking a Commons file of the same name, so the local file had to be deleted to make the one on Commons visible. The new file looks okay and should be visible now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy

Ha--beat ya by a minute! DMacks (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful

I'm disappointed that you've just deleted my file when I have permission to use/upload it. Hardly helpful of you. -- User:Matt.whitby

I assume you are talking of File:The Nines.jpg. I'm unfortunately not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, so I have to go by what's on the image description page. You used the "non-free image" upload form for it, thus admitting it was not a free work. It was also very obviously a promotional image, of the type that is almost always non-free. You neither bothered to fill in the fair-use data, nor say anything about a license you had. Hardly helpful of you. If you actually do have a license – and I mean a fully free one, and evidence of it – then you are of course welcome to re-upload the file, with proper data this time. If you don't have such a license, please don't bother re-uploading, because even with a fully filled-in fair use rationale it would never stand a chance, being replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg

As per the discussion on Zzarch's talk page, at least one revision of this file was ineligible for summary deletion under WP:CSD#F7b. I'd sincerely appreciate letting the XfD process continue normally.   — C M B J   06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the argument. Which revision, and why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The first version was the direct subject of commentary in at least two reliable sources, thus there is no qualified argument for automatic deletion in any event. There's also the matter of F7b's requirement having been contradicted by past consensus in nominations like Stonewall riots.jpg and expunged from WP:NFCC via an extensive RFC in May 2011, though strangely WP:CSD, {{Non-free historic image}}, and {{db-badfairuse}} have not been updated to reflect this with respect to historical images. Beyond that, there's also serious problems with assuming that any reasonable file be mandatorily and arbitrarily deleted early in defiance of consensus (WP:NOTLAW, WP:UCS), especially under these circumstances, but I'm trying to avoid going there because I know that you were acting in good faith.   — C M B J   11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree on several points.

1. Neither the article, nor any of its sources, engaged in any amount of significant discussion of any version of the photograph. What they commented upon was the situation depicted in the photograph, not the photograph itself. More about this distinction below. This is a very common mistake in these kinds of discussion.
2. The RfC did most definitely not override or invalidate WP:CSD#F7b. What it did clarify was that the range of possible justifications of historical photographs in general could not be narrowed down to "object of commentary". However, it also made it very clear that – of course – every individual image, whatever its justification, has to pass all NFC criteria separately. Photographs from commercial news agencies almost always fail NFCC#2 ("commercial market role"), because our usage of the file is in direct competition with comparable usage by others who would have to pay license fees for it. CSD#F7b simply reflects this fact. NFCC#2 enforcement is compulsory; that's why the related CSD has so little wiggle room.
3. The only type of situation where a fair use case is so strong that it may override even the NFCC#2 consideration with commercial agency images is where "object of commentary" is true in a very narrow, very strong sense: in those cases where the creative work of the photographer, as such, is the topic of our discussion, because in that case we can make a watertight case of "transformative use" in the sense of fair-use law. That is typically the case only with very few, highly iconic or famous news photographs, like File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg or V-J Day in Times Square. The crucial difference is whether our encyclopedic interest is focussed on the creative achievement of the photographer himself, or whether we are using the photograph only as a vehicle for illustrating something else, i.e. the historic situation that the photograph happens to depict. Most uses of historic photographs belong to this second type, as does this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

1. I provided Zzarch with quotes from Forbes and Techdirt where the image itself was directly commented on, as opposed to just the event. He seems to have archived that discussion since I first contacted you, but it can be found here.
2. I wasn't the only person who interpreted the RFC's closure as having implications for historical images, but I'll admit that I only skimmed through the discussion and it's possible I've been lead astray. Setting that aside, I disagree that this case here was so comparatively clear-cut that it could be summarily ended days early against consensus; I hadn't even weighed in with the above sources (or any others) because I saw so little chance of the nomination even succeeding.
3. Again, I personally think that transformative work coincidentally exists to support this image. With that said, Stonewall riots.jpg is still a recent example where a Corbis image was kept without regard for transformative use. In fact, supporting arguments appear to have explicitly included the point that transformation is only one possible justification under U.S. copyright law, as well as the view that unique historic events justify photographic illustration. I'm open to the idea that consensus may have changed since I was active in this area, but these views are both consistent with those to which I have traditionally subscribed.   — C M B J   13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, while I maintain that there's good reason to believe the latter version can qualify for fair use, it's worth highlighting the fact that the first version of ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg wasn't even from a commercial agency at all: it was from the Polish Press Agency, a non-profit run by the Polish government. As a side note, and for whatever it's worth, here's a semi-auto harvested list of files likely to be on shakier legal ground:

• File:General-Jorge-Ubico.jpg
• File:Hollysul1.jpg
• File:Hawkshaw Hawkins.jpg
• File:Babe Zaharias early 1930s.jpg
• File:Alice de Janze trial.jpg
• File:Khruschev shoe fake.jpg
• File:Georgia thermal generator.jpg
• File:Patty Berg circa 1936.jpg
• File:Harry Greb.jpg
• File:Claude Simon.jpg
• File:Charles MacVeagh 9oct1925.jpg
• File:Helen Frankenthaler-1956.jpg
• File:Arabella churchill 1967.jpg
• File:10 Rillington Place backyard.jpg
• File:Gale Storm.jpg
• File:Blink182 old.jpg
• File:Harry-catterick.jpg
• File:LIFE May 1944 Jap Skull.jpg
• File:Kiki Preston.jpg
• File:Anthony Minghella, (1954 — 2008).jpg
• File:Iraq Talabani w al-Nujeifi 11nov10 lowres.jpg
• File:Burnt corkedited.jpg
• File:Sherman Lee by Mark Duncan.jpg
• File:Lynn Cooper.jpg
• File:Vietcapturejm01.jpg
• File:Joseph glimco.jpg
• File:Bush mission accomplished.jpg
• File:John Yettaw.jpg
• File:David Brown 1916-2010.jpg
• File:Julia phillips filmproducer.jpg
• File:David Sharp 2006.jpg

  — C M B J   13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments don't cut it. And I see no evidence PAP is non-profit. I also get the feeling you have not really followed me about that distinction between comment focussing on the photograph as a creative work and comment mentioning the photograph as a vehicle for illustrating something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments don't cut it, which is why I linked to the same page and essentially disclaimed the information as trivial beforehand. I made the list as a curiosity and wouldn't have even attached it had I known its inclusion would in any way serve to distract from what preceded it, or otherwise be misconstrued like this. As for the difference between commentary on the content of an image or commentary on its merits as a creative work, I recognize the distinction and attempted to address this previously. It's evident that we're of very different opinions on the issue, but I do not agree that an image can be cursorily eradicated on this basis alone. I do not think that this view is representative of the community as a whole.   — C M B J   14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:ACTA protest by members of the Polish parliament.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.   — C M B J   12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In (belated) answer to a question you made over at DRV, I suppose "definition of a creative work" rolled off my fingers as an admittedly inscrutable misnomer for a more abstract thought. There never was any real misunderstanding between us about the specific concept that you invoked, though we do espouse fundamentally different ideologies in the associated area. Beyond that, I'd like to say that the repeated, mutual miscommunication between us has probably been due to a tendency that we both seem to share in common: expeditiousness. It's undoubtedly a blessing in most facets of life, but it can, on occasion, contribute adversely in certain uncommon communicative situations.   — C M B J   08:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD or CSD ?

Antid.'s latest article is Independent Albania, another OR/SYNTH essay like Myth of Albanian Indifference to Religion. He copied some parts of other articles and added other ones like After his speech they began by checking the documents.. Should I bother taking it to AfD or will CSD suffice?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, could you fill in/ look to see if this image is a) got he right rationale b) not going against any policiys? Thanks File:The Voice UK Promotion.jpg MayhemMario 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced. The logo as such already has an image in the article, and the photographs of the persons could be replaced with free photographs, as long as the purpose is just to show who they are. As for the argument that it shows the manner of promotion of the show, that would only make for a good rationale if that manner of promotion was a topic of sourced critical commentary. Please bear in mind that you can't simply take over a standard rationale for logos here, because this thing isn't actually a logo. The logo is only the thingie in the middle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite obviously this non-free image is currently being used in a draft of the article to identify the judges and as such fails the non-free content criteria on at least three counts, replaceability, contextual significance and use in non-mainspace. The mainspace article has a logo in the infobox so you can't get away with that claim either. You are just SOL on this one. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, although I came here to speak to this specific user, thanks for your comments. When I uploaded it, I uploaded it on the basis that it was a version of this, as this is the US version, and I was uploading the UK version. Now, I practically came here to ask to delete the image I uploaded, you can do it straight away, or keep it, or in fact delete my image and the one I linked above. MayhemMario 12:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, one part of the image that it fails (supposed) is "not used in mainspace", well it will be when I split it off!!! :P The image is not there for the judges, it there to show the promotion of The Voice UK. MayhemMario 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for enforcement

FP, the recent editing of Smatprt (talk) on the SAQ page has been disruptive and tendentious in an effort to right a great wrong by repetitively removing a section that accurately describes the movie Anonymous.

1. 29 Jan 2012
2. 31 Jan 2012
3. 1 Feb 2012
4. 2 Feb 2012
5. 2 Feb 2012
6. 4 Feb 2012
7. 5 Feb 2012
8. 5 Feb 2012

He has been repeatedly asked to discuss the edit on the talk page, but his response has been one comment three days ago (see last three posts) and then repeating his deletion of the offending material, using various edit summaries. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

FP - Tom's contention above, that his recent version of the Anonymous plot summary "accurately portrays the movie" is what is being debated here. I'm not sure what "great wrong" is being discussed, but Toms own edits and multiple reversions are just as much at issue, or at least they should be in a fair hearing of this matter. I have provided my reasons concisely on the talk page and have expanded upon them with my edit summaries, which Tom does not mention in his report above. I have also provided numerous references (NY Times and Post, LA Times, Variety, etc.), but they are not being used, while the reviews of lessor critics and non-professionals are being cherrypicked for inclusion. In any case, here are my edit summaries which explain my edits, statements which would be hard to define as controversial:

• Devere is not "depicted" as illegitimate until the last few minutes, an accusation that is left ambiguous at the movies end. Please don't summarize plots if you have not even seen it.
• again, not a major premise, and no ref supplied says that it is. Links to the movie and the PT theory are already provided. imdb for plot ref.
• removing bogus ref, which does not mention any of this stuff!
• former version inaccurate, and RS provided was an opinion piece. We can't use someone's "interpretation" of the plot, and their mischaracterization of plot elements.Stick to uncontested facts.
• refs to professional film critics supplied. Removing plot summary items that are not consistently mentioned, or only serve as pointless plot spoilers. (no objection to PT mention, but need a RS, right???)

Between my edit summaries and my initial comment, I have provided more than enough reasons to justify my edits. One final observance - this section on "Anonymous" was not part of the FA and never achieved any sort of consensus. As we have seen, the reference originally supplied was a fake, citing an opinion piece that didn't contain any of the specific information being cited. I have now supplied refs to 4 Major movie critics (the bug guys), as well as the IMDB site, confirming my edits. More are available, but even this sampling of major reviewers is pretty much unanimous about what the movie is "about".Smatprt (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have answered you on the talkpage. And you failed to mention this review, which is from one of three sites for reviews of general films on the list of potential resources on the WP:WikiProject Film/Resources page, the other two being Bright Lights Film Journal and Film Journal International. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To the point - please note Toms initial edit summary: "reinsert major premise of the movie which was mentioned in every review and restore ref"[[44]] This was the first of tom's many reverts and it is precisely what the 5 major reviews links I posted disprove. After being faced with a complete misrepresentation, which was then bolstered with a reference that was later to be found to be bogus, I supplied 5+ references. All of them have now been deleted.[[45]]. How is that kind of behavior not being disruptive? Smatprt (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would also like to challenge the notion that it is I that am responsible for the tone on the page. During my banning, even Jimmy Wales himself was attacked and had to warn the present editors about their own behavior.[[46]]
• Jimbo then made this comment, mentioning the treatment he received:[[47]]. At the time, he started a "straw poll", which was since been treated by Tom as a binding decision. I would ask you to look into this as Well, as it is my understanding that "straw polls" have no binding power. Why has the administration not looked into any of these incidents?
• Jimbo later left this comment on his talk page:[[48]], which sums up the situation pretty well. Its too bad that no one is actually interested in fixing the problem, instead of simply dolling out punishments that avoid the core issue, which is the empowerment of a handful of editors to the point that they are now out of control and feel like they can get away with anything, even attacking and belittling Wikipedia's founder.Smatprt (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kathy Burke

Why did you delete the photo I uploaded? It is a screen cap. I have the video right in front of me. Itsthegoldenratio (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the tag ({{Non-free television screenshot}}) more closely. It applies only to screenshots used to support encyclopedic commentary on the TV programme in question. You were using it simply as a portrait of the actor, at the top of her biography article. In that function we can only use fully free images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Doon Schoo (Nehru image)

Will you never understand that the image you deleted was FREE!!?? It is such an old photograph that its copyright has expired! Almost 100 years old! Also, it was not only being used on Doon School page but also Jawaharlal Nehru page. Don't you understand it was important to both these pages? Such an old photograph of such a historic figure!! Not many images like these exist in this world. A photograph I went to a lot of pains to retrieve!!!!!!!!!! It grieves my heart to see it just being deleted carelessly by YOU! Gross! Merlaysamuel (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop shouting please. Pull yourself together. If you want to make a case that the image is in the public domain, please do so. You haven't made any such case yet. It was you who marked it as a "non-free" file, so it is now being considered according to the rules for non-free files. I think I told you earlier that in order to demonstrate public domain status you need to provide information about its publication history. So far, you haven't even provided the most basic information on when that visit was, let alone when the image was published. It would have to be published before 1941 for PD status to hold. As far as I am informed, Nehru was prime minister from 1947 onwards, so I doubt the visit was before 1941. Was it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop edit-warring on Analjit Singh. If you accuse the other editor of "vandalism" one more time, you'll be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To save you some work: it seems the image is likely from 1957 [49]. Thus, not PD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yamaaan

Thanks for blocking Yamaaan. I thought I was the only one that cared about his/her persistent copyright violation. Although he/she seems to have got the hang of fair use images for pokemon cartoons, all other image uploading has been problematic. If I were an admin I would suggest a topic ban on all image uploading for this user. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft

It's too good, puts my efforts to shame... I may well delete them now. I think you have got it quite right, it seems the best way to go forward. Next time I get stuck with JS, I'll know where to come ;-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Upload wizard: my two cents :)

Hello. You have a new message at Maryana (WMF)'s talk page. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Images deletions

I see you are catching most, if not all, of the CSD nominates I make for unlicenced images that I sometimes source, though without a tag I can't actually nominate them as copyvios though I would frequently like to. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In REF:

In ref to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ALetrero_Nuevo_Cuartel_Policia_Municipal%2C_Barrio_Canas_Urbano%2C_Ponce%2C_PR.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=475781781&oldid=475778542 I fdon't know what a FUR is, or how that has anything to do with pt 4 that you deleted. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Oh, sorry for the Wikipedian jargon. "FUR" stands for "Fair-use rationale". What I meant to say was that I realized the permission status for the photograph as such is in fact okay (your pt.4 made it sound less clear than it actually was), but the fair-use justification is still weak. That's why I removed the "no permission" tag, but left the "files for deletion" tag in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, could you consider changing your signature? It's rather annoying, to tell you the truth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. And, it's hard communicating with him re his mainspace contributions too. --Merbabu (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nirmal95

Dude chill!.Dont act like you are the protector of wikipedia or something,and don't try to warn me and all that,be polite you ass!.It is a known fact that the person whom i have added a photo has committed tax fraud and it is appropriate to show the enforcement capabilities of income tax dept in Indian Revenue Service page,it is not defamatory it is a goddamn fact! as for Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation it is not my fucking personal commentary,it is what IRS people the employees of the organisation do when they are posted in the organisation.As for Satyam,i apologize for it but try to be polite please,i am only 16 please man!! Don't you understand it was important to the page.Instead of helping and guiding young Wikipedia editors like me,you threaten me???It grieves my heart to see it just being deleted by YOU!(Nirmal95 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

Chuckle. "Be polite you ass!" Look, if you're only sixteen, that's great and you're very welcome to contribute here, but you still need to watch the way you talk. Also, if you're only 16 and wish to be treated more gently because of that, you also need to be prepared to act like a respectful young person and listen to what people with more experience on this project are telling you. You are in fact talking to a person who could be your father, or your teacher. I have been trying very patiently to explain something to you; instead, you just go on reverting, even now, and even without the minimal sign of courtesy, i.e. an explanation in an edit summary. Even right now, while talking to me [50]. You are acting in a very impolite and immature way (not just through the way you are talking here, which is of course quite unacceptable), but also simply through the way you are editing. I'll now explain it to you one more time: the passage you have been adding to Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation is simply bad writing. It is (a) not neutral-sounding, (b) unsourced, (c) not the kind of information expected in an encyclopedia. That's another thing you probably just have to learn still, when you're only 16: write in the proper manner for an encyclopedia. And be prepared to listen when people tell you what you ought to improve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nirmal,

12 FEB, 2012

Subject: SORRY LETTER FOR RUDE BEHAVIOR

Dear Sir,

I am extremely sorry for my rude behavior on the Wikipedia talk page. I have rudely behaved with you and acted impolite and in a immature way.When you were deleting all my precious work i was angry,but now i realize it was for the good. That’s the reason I kept that in my mind and behaved so badly with you.The way I behaved with you was totally wrong. Please forgive me and please guide me while i rewrite the whole Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation an Indian revenue service page,please guide me..

Yours truly,

Mr.Nirmal Mathew (Nirmal95 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

Very unhelpful

Next time, a little notice on my talk page explaining why you deleted an image I uploaded would be nice, so I don't have to dig through watchlists. I had no idea that you weren't allowed to put pictures of waxworks with the relevant image rights on the website. How the hell do you expect users to improve if all you do is delete with no help? ffs --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but these kinds of deletions are simply so frequent I usually don't have the time to volunteer an individual explanation unless asked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's ok I guess. I was just annoyed that it had gone with no trace without notification. The positive is that I have now read every policy ever written about files etc, so hopefully this won't happen again, haha. Keep up the good work with the copyvio file deletions. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)