User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 27

User:HailEpov

Hello. Could you take a look at this user's activity? S/he keeps inserting misplaced and/or unreferenced POV-pushing claims to articles about Greek music: specifically in bouzouki ("in ancient Greece, the instrument was known as trichordo or Pandoura") and makam (see the lame edit-warring). Even if s/he is not a sockpuppet of Plouton2 (see the relevant discussion in my talk-page), s/he should be blocked solely on the grounds of her/him being disruptive and having unacceptably poor command of English. Maybe we also need to semi-protect these articles from being edited to prevent this vandalism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding User:HailEpov, I forgot to mention his/her frivolous vandalism accusations: Talk:Bouzouki#Rule_violations_-_Unprovoked_vandal_behavior. This lack of good faith is the main reason I have avoided engaging in discussion with her/him. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

HailEpov keeps defending their edits (which consist in adulterating citations [2], [3]), and keeps frivolously accusing me of "unprovoked vandal behavior" and "nationalistic intolerant edits" ([4], [5]); such behavior is reminiscent of the trolling & harassment tactics of Zerothinker/Plouton2 and HumanNaturOriginal/Plouton2. Also, HailEpov's defending of Fleris's disruptive edits (and vice versa) establishes a suspicious connection between them; confer the similar pattern here (then I was accused of vandalism and edit-warring by Aperitis25, Basstonic, Esterrio which all proved to be Plouton2 socks). HailEpov's activity is not just the sign of their poor understanding of Wikipedia policies but a sign of intended disruptive behavior. So, now I ask for a block against HailEpov not only for their insufficient competence to edit and for their violating WP:SOC. but also for their violating of WP:HAR. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Another case?

Note: refactored. Why was this report about an apparently different case mixed into the other one above? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A Quick Note. User:ProfessionalScholar is a very well-known puppet-user, who make the same unconstructive and disruptive reverted edits, following by nationalist irredentism. look at his contributions and edit summaries [6][7][8], [9][10]. Articles like Arabic Music, Lebanon, Phoenicia or Middle Eastern music has been vandalised over and over again by his sock-accounts User:ChiefWikiEditing - User:Persianbeauty - User:AncientCivilizations and User:ChiefWikiEditing. --Fleris (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the topic of this thread, but I will nevertheless cite the accepted ArbCom block appeal: User talk:ProfessionalScholar#ArbCom block appeal; I would also like to mention that ProfessionalScholar was blocked for sockpuppeting, not "nationalist irredentism." --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to get into any debates, but just for the record. I am not a "well-known" sockpuppet as Fleris claims, a user who did not even edit the articles I did but made such a claim. I was a newbie and I was not aware that there were restrictions of having only one account, however it was proven that I did not "vandal" any articles nor was I a "nationalist irredentism". I only went the wrong way about reverting edits by the suspected sock accounts. I've apologised and learned from that. But like Omnipaedista said, this is not a thread for that. I have already spoken to Arbcommitte about myself, so there is no reason to discuss it further. ProfessionalScholar (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

On a quick researh at his history, we can see that professionalScholar, is a user that has been warned for a couple of times for edit warring by the users, with four named accounts, confirmed of his "sock invasion", plus a loud conflict with other users with an obvious nationalist irredentism. It hasn't to be an expert to express the sense of distrust about this user and his edits. You can see also his sock activity Sockpuppet investigations/ProfessionalScholar. --Fleris (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Undead rising?

It would seem the perennial troll on the Jared Huffman page is back, rearranging the photos again. This time he's Victor Victoria, but with a mostly blank user page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but to me it looks like Victor Victoria (talk · contribs) is a much older account with a much broader spectrum of editing interests, so he's unlikely to be the Marquis. More likely just somebody who happened to come by and didn't realize why I removed those images, not knowing about the socking background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thank you for telling me! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbs, please restore some sanity here

Ho ho. You said it right, but arbcom like their entertainment too much. Where would they be without long rambling cases where they can sit on the sidelines throwing peanuts? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Some Guidance Needed

Dear Fellow,

A few days back, while reviewing some submitted pages for creation by an editor, I rejected them for being non-notable. The editor asked for some guidance regarding the decline and was provided to him (on my talk page).

Today, I checked the pages to see if the editor has made some modifications or not; and I was surprised to see all the pages being moved to the article space i.e., accepted. Going to the history of the articles, I found that the editor (author of the articles) had himself moved all the pages to the article space by accepting them.

Is this thing allowed at Wikipedia?? Can an author/editor himself approve his own page?? I did not nominate it for speedy deletion because I just wanted to make sure if I was right about this. I am providing links to some of these articles, kindly check them out yourself. XK8ER (talk) is the author/editor of the articles.

Here is the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Borja_Fernandez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rich_Parker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kevin_Marron_Lopez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ayumi_Kawasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cesar_Acharezzi

The above list contains some of the articles, there may be many other similar ones.

Abdullah Alam (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

FYROM

Hi Future. I have a matter at ANI regarding FYROM and edit-warring. I need your advice regarding the conventions preventing FYROM from being used in Wikipedia. The discussion is here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Been a bit busy, you know where, so it took me some time to return here to thank you for your elegant statement. Respect. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Independent Macedonia (1944)

Hello Future. Can you please check this vandalism? The frustrated user reverts me and Edward, constantly. Thanks--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Plus he reverted us 3 times, which means he broke the rule. I cannot revert his vandalisms any more, since I will break the rule too.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Future, seriously, this user is harmful for the working atmosphere, Take a look at the history of Karposh's Rebellion as well. You will see what he is doing. If you won't react tell me so, I will ask other admin, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute

hey..The image File:Cobalt Skies.jpg was deleted on account of copyright infringement. The photo was taken by a close friend and her contribution has been acknowledged in the details. Could you please reconsider the deletion and restore the image. Thanks nishantgopal 12:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On the image page you said the image was freely licensed according to a statement on [11]. But there is no such statement on that page. If your friend wishes to release the photograph under a free license, you could ask her to add a statement to that effect on her Facebook page (something along the lines of "licensed for free re-use under the terms of the CreativeCommons BY-SA license"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

New collage at Istanbul

I don't know how much interest you still have in the Istanbul article, but a new collage has been proposed for the infobox in the article and there exists some disagreement about which one should be in the article. See Talk:Istanbul#Proposing a new version of the city collage and Talk:Istanbul#Consensus and unsourced images; your input would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 21:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In case it needed saying

Given our history, including the two recent bad blocks which were reversed, it is clear that you are unable to interact with me in an unbiased manner. While I think that you abused your admin tools in both instances and failed to live up to your responsibilities by refusing to ask for a block review on ANI, I am not going to pursue it. You are a biased and involved admin when it comes to anything involving me. Under no circumstances should you be using your tools in any matter in which I am heavily involved. I think this should be obvious at this point, even to you, but I wanted to make sure that you are aware of how I see things so that you are not surprised later on. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I do not make any such commitments. All my interactions with you have been in the context of legitimate administrative action; as such, according to the rules, they do not constitute admin "involvement". I continue to feel perfectly able to act in an administrative capacity with respect to you just the same way as with other editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you feel that way, but what matters is how others see our involvement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

R N Dandekar

I wish to create a biographical article on R N Dandekar would it be ok? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Since (as far as I remember; correct me if I'm wrong) you were topic-banned from Indian history in a rather wide sense, and this person apparently was a historian working on historical topics close to the ones you had conflicts over, I would advise that this would likely result in a breach of your restriction. It's very hard if not impossible to write about a scholar without writing about the topics he worked on. Weren't some of your previous run-ins with your topic ban over similar issues? (Like, I seem to remember there was something about you writing an article about a book, and then making a point about avoiding to say what the book was about because that would have violated the ban?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dandekar was a not a historian but a Sanskrit language scholar and president of International Association of Sanskrit Studies, I asked because he was born in 1909, died recently. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I ask you because you are the admin who handed my ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

He studied the Vedas etc, which makes him a historian - in India, these mythologies hold historical significance and, indeed, are often considered not to be mythology but fact. (Not stalking, Yogesh: this is yet another of the 1500 or so pages on my watchlist).- Sitush (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Quesion

While i agree with your blockof User:Santurwoman, was there some discussion /posting for her eits? Would seem dodgy if directly by an admins view. (in the interests of impartiality knowing you were eiright in the end)Lihaas (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean. A discussion thread at AE or ANI? Such threads are generally not obligatory. The whole point about discretionary sanctions (just like normal disruption sanctions) is that uninvolved admins should be enabled to intervene quickly and unbureaucratically. This editor was warned and then resumed the same type of editing again despite the warning, and they did so in the context of a highly sensitive article, where her disruptive edits were forcing other editors to risk breaking the 1RR restrictions themselves in cleaning them up, so she had to be stopped quickly. On the other hand, since this is a relatively new editor with little or no prior involvement in the topic area, I felt that a short-term block was better than a topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

AE Withdrawal

I'd like to withdraw the recent AE filed related to Al Ameer son's edits. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Subhasree Ganguly

They have again uploaded the same image and the ref I converted to inline, they have added at the bottom of the article again. I reported at BLPN yesterday. No one attended that. 3RR is ahead of me. I have not reverted their edits. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

New messages

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

--Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear, are they (File:Logo of ''Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev''.jpg and the other one) okay now? --Tamravidhir (Jiva is Shiva!) 07:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on ARBPIA applicability

Hi, can you please advise whether League of Nations mandate comes under WP:ARBPIA? This article is wider than the Israel-Palestine conflict, but all the problems that occur there are in relation to the Palestine mandate. In my opinion it applies, but as an 'involved' administrator I need a second opinion. If you agree that ARBPIA applies, please also deliver the standard ARBPIA "warning" to User talk:FireJeff‎ or tell me that I'm allowed to (I've never been clear about that). Replying here is lovely. Thanks. Zero^talk 12:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tom Walkinshaw Racing Article

Not sure if this is where I should post - but I put a great deal of care into updating an article called 'Tom Walkinshaw Racing' which you have just made a careless edit of. I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning behind the edit? The chronological order of the cars is out of place and it no longer makes any sense. The previous table was much better.

CARX (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you actually wanted the table to be that wide, with two car entries side by side? I changed that mainly because on smaller screens (like mine), the table wouldn't fit on the screen. And as for the temporal order, all I did was I put those entries that were side by side directly underneath each other, so I assumed that would be preserving the order. Or was the table supposed to be read like two separate columns, first all those on the left, then all those on the right? If that was the intention, it was by no means obvious to me as a reader. I'd reshuffle the entries to fix the order, only I don't have the necessary info for that, as the entries don't actually say anything about dates.

By the way, I guess you understood that I came across the article purely because I was doing some routine image patrolling. For illustrating the article, please stick with freely licensed images (such as those that are in it now); according to our project policies we cannot use non-free ("fair use") images in contexts like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

BarkingMoon

I saw that the following - written earlier - might answer your question, and I have a question for you:

The RfA of PumpkinSky was over before I could add worth reading. I (still) miss BarkingMoon, see top of my talk, and his. The way he was treated almost made me leave when he left. - and I see no change --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Because questions did not stop even after the RfA, I tried to answer with facts. - See also. - I want to believe that Wikipedia is about content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I miss him, how about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I still cannot for a moment believe BarkingMoon was a different person, and I don't see any facts in your "answer with facts" link above that would dissuade me. To tell you the truth, I don't think you are doing PSky a favour by presenting his case in these terms, encouraging him and his friends to perpetuate the denial with respect to the BarkingMoon. I would have had no objections at all against his return, and no strong objections against his re-sysoping, if it wasn't for this denial, and I really wonder why PSky has found it so difficult to simply come clean about it, like he did about the rest. Maybe it's because to do so he would have to admit that in this case he deceived not just the community at large, but his best wikifriends too? In any case, I find the evidence for their identity overwhelming (e.g. the strange way he toyed with his broken German to befriend you is not something another person would have been likely to just copy from him merely because he was showing them how to edit Wikipedia).

So, I'm sorry, if you want me to sign some statement of solidarity in his favour, I can't do that as long as this issue is still unfinished. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin Sky did come clean about Barking Moon and about his connection to Barking Moon.This is different than assuming or believing he was lying or assuming one part of his "coming clean" was denial. Can we just randomly select the part of Pumpkin Sky's revealing and sometimes very personal discussion on what he did and why, assume that part of the revelation was a lie, entreat him to come clean about the part we don't believe, and when he doesn't but stands by what he said walk away and suggest he is a liar (my words not yours) because he won't come clean about something he says he didn't do. At that bottom of this is not a fact as many seem to think but an opinion and a belief. Do we have the right to expect someone else to fall in line with what we believe, not what we know, but what we believe and when they don't condemn them. I guess we do but the circulatory quality of this idea for me is quite mind boggling. However, we all have aright to put our opinions and positions.(olive (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

What exactly about "I find the evidence for their identity overwhelming" do you have difficulties comprehending? It so happens that I do find the evidence overwhelming, so I have no other option but to believe he was lying. That's just the way it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I miss two people, you are free to assume what you like, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

More precisely: you are free to tell me that my friends lack integrity and deceive me, yes, you are, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

ps: Did you know who also acted on evidence? Otello. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect: Absolutely. You have a right to your opinion. Others have a right to theirs as well. Each opinion is legitimate. I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else that my opinion is the better one. Simply that these are opinions not fact and that other opinions like Gerda's are legitimate. As an aside: there is no denial if there was no lie. So the "friends" are simply acting on their opinions and beliefs, as others are on theirs.(olive (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

Non Free Media

Hi,

You left a message on my talk page about a "non-free" image I uploaded. The image is actually free, so can you tell me how I change its status? Thanks. AlexAndrews (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply from 79.160.40.10

79.160.40.10 asked me to let you know that he finally responded to a thread you started on his talk page User_talk:79.160.40.10#Account.3F. Meters (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Baklava

Hallo FutPerf,
there is currently an User who, although asked to discuss his changes on the Talk pages (first by Macrakis and then by myself), keeps reinstating his changes on the Baklava article. Can you please have a look at that? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What is vandalism?

Or maybe better "who is a vandal?" Could you please have a look at this edit? User:Masri145 reverts a very mainstream edit with such an edit summary, accusing the previous contributor of vandalism. I am interested here because I had made a similar edit myself before them and have never thought my edit had "vandalism" in it. Therefore, I take this as as a personal attack. (BTW I have a very strong feeling the said user name and user:23x2 are either used by the same person or are acting in a co-ordinated way in articles regarding Turks, Greeks and the island of Cyprus. Other than having similar POVs they edit at the same time and go to vacations at the same time...) In short I accuse them to have a not acceptable relationship in WP (sockpuppetry, meat sock, canvassing, whatsoever) and am ready to apologize if I am wrong. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A wee 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.— Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Alpert

My apologies for replacing the photo, I didn't know that just by uploading something with the same name as a prior file that it would replace it (how does one even check for that?) Anyhow, I've resubmitted an OTRS email to ensure the copyright release of that photo is still received. Is there a way of double-checking photo names so this doesn't happen again? Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know – actually, I thought the system normally gives you a warning when you upload over an existing file. Not sure what situations there are where such a warning can accidentally be sidestepped. In any case, don't worry, you're not the first to miss it; this happens quite often. Thanks for fixing it with the new upload. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Richard Alpert.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Alpert.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 1#File:Ah boys to men screenshot 1.jpg.
Message added 09:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

By the way, (unrelated) your name interests me. Why "Future Perfect at Sunrise"? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: File permission problem with File:Pr-22-aerial-view.jpg

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard incident that involves you

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

File:BenLocke.jpg

Hello! I saw your message regarding the photo I included in the article "The Substitute". I am very sorry for not including viable explanations and information regarding the photo. I was a very young and new user with very little experience with pictures at that time, so I wasn't very familiar with rationales associated with files. I have included more information, as well as an additional rationale to verify its importance. If more clarification and information are required, simply inform me in my talk page. Thank you! Jal11497 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid the rationale you added is still not sufficient. It's still just a piece of generic boilerplate and fails to say anything specific about this particular image. Not your fault, I know, because this type of pseudo-rationales is very commonly used in this domain, but it's still wrong. What you'd have to explain is: why is this particular image needed to adequately understand the article? In what way is this scene "pivotal", in what way could it "illustrate themes of the entire episode" (and why "could"? Either it does or it doesn't), but most crucially: what about the visual detail shown in the image is needed to understand that pivotal function (beyond the simple plot information "A meets B", which can just as well be explained in text alone)? All of this needs to be spelled out explicitly and in concrete terms, about what this image does in this article.

I'm sorry I can't further help you with this, because personally I strongly suspect the image does not in fact have any such good justification and will have to be deleted eventually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Issue?

User:Frietjes seems to have gone on a CSD spree, tagging a ton of stuff at AFC, and several IP user pages, all via a script (or he types really fast). I'd prefer not to get into a big thing on ANI about it, so could you have a look at this briefly? MSJapan (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

AE notification

Could you please come comment or take some admin action here? I'm really interested in seeing what you do or say. Cla68 (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Image policies and guidelines

Hi Future Perfect. I too have long wanted to get things straight (I made some limited improvements over the summer). I didn't see your comment to a similar effect until I drafted my proposal, which has been spinning round my head for months, at WP:VPP#Image use policy. Any thoughts are, of course, welcome - if you get them in soon, it might be possible to incorporate them without derailing the discussion. I hope it would have the added bonus of helping to prevent further problems in this area. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FfD/DRV closure

See here It looks like this is done, so if you want to continue winnowing through Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_18 and Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_19, I know that I would appreciate it. Respond on my talk if you need to reach me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:MuhammadBinTughluq Sultan.jpg

I used this image because I was unable to find suitable alternative. I do not know who made this painting nor do I know whether a copyright-free portrait painting of this king, who lived in 1300's is available. Please guide me as to where I can get a better replacement. jinjanjaa (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what other portraits exist. The point is that this one is very likely modern, and as such copyrighted. As long as it's copyrighted and not published under a free license, we cannot use it, as it's replaceable as a matter of principle. Even if no other free portrait exists now, one could be created. In fact, you or I could make a drawing of a vaguely Indian-looking person in period clothes and call it a portrait of Muhammad bin Tughluq. Our imagination of what he might have looked like is no better or worse than the imagination of the anonymous (and rather untalented) artist who made this, so the contribution such a scribble would make to the article is exactly the same. Actually, modern imaginary portraits of historic personalities are hardly ever really useful for articles, because, quite simply, nobody could possibly know what those persons actually looked like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Afrikan Liberationist

You just indeffed this guy, the guy he called a racist idiot is dead, so that was not a BLP thing. Two edits and you indeff? Seems a tad harsh. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Point taken about the guy no longer being alive (hadn't noticed that, honestly), but it's still quite blatant disruptive editing, and his response to you looks pretty much like trolling to me. In fact, the other edit where he calls (unnamed) critics "racists" could also be seen as a BLP violation. I see little or no value in warning such people and trying to educate them to become NPOV-abiding Wikipedians; the only thing that typically achieves is to turn them from clumsy POV-pushers into more sophisticated POV pushers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not call it disruptive editing, just a guy with a little tude. Your shout but I think a second chnace ought to be given, just ask the guy to read the rules Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for the work that you do. It has helped me and many others when a disruptive editor is blocked. Keep up the good work! Maine12329 (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Dethklok Live at The Tabernacle, Atlanta, GA, on 8 December 2012.jpg

Hello, is it possible to change the licensing on this photo so it does not get deleted? I was not sure where the copyright on this photo falls under, as I took it myself, but could find no option for performance photographs.

Ah, if this is your own photograph, then you can release it under any license of your own choice. If you are willing to put it under a free license, such as {{cc-by-sa}}, there shouldn't be any problem. We'd only need some form of proof that you are really that person – the easiest way to do that would probably be to just add the licensing statement on your own original website (e.g. "This photograph is released under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license"). Thanks for your contribution, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Fut.Perf., I have edited my blog with a Copyright and Attributions disclaimer on the left hand side underneath the user image: http://cigsphotography.blogspot.com/

Deleted Ruger Images

Hello. You recently deleted 4 images that I uploaded. I wanted to see if you could help me. I obviously did something wrong with the way I uploaded them. I have permission to use these images. I got the permission, in writing VIA e-mail from the company that owns the images. How should I go about uploading these images? I thought that "logo" was the best category to put them under (I was wrong) and I didn't mean to mark them as non-replaceable. All of this was done through the upload wizard.

Again, I would beg your assistance. I want to be a helpful contributor and follow the rules. I DO have permission to use these images, I just don't know how to cite them I guess. Thank you for correcting my mistakes and thanks in advance for any and all assistance! --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The permission you mention will only be of help to us if it is a fully free license, i.e. one that allows not just us to use the images on Wikipedia, but also everybody else to use them elsewhere, for whatever purpose (e.g. the standardized {{cc-by-sa}} license). Can you please clarify if that is the owners' intention? If yes, please forward their licensing statement to our registry at "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". If not, I'm afraid there will be no way for us to keep them, according to our image use policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They specifically did say that the images were usable under "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License". (I got the feeling that the person who responded to my e-mail was a Wiki-Editor him/herself.) I forward the email this morning, about 6 hours ago. Do I need to wait for the e-mail to be processed or something? Again, please forgive my ignorance. I know my way around editing but still have a LOT to learn. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that changes a lot. If we have a cc-by-sa license, you just need to say so on the file page :-) (Next time, if you use the upload wizard again, use the section about "free files by somebody else" and it will guide you through the right questions). I'll undelete the files now and change the description on one of them as a model; I'd ask you to adapt the rest accordingly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to! Thank you so much. I'm sure you get a lot of people yelling at you for deleting their stuff. I hope I didn't come across that way. Thanks again for your help! --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As a followup, if I upload additional images from this same source, do I need to re-send the e-mail? --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If the text of the e-mail makes it clear what images it applies to, it should be sufficient to point to the existing mail as registered in OTRS. Once the license has been verified by the OTRS people, they'll put a tag with the OTRS ticket number on the file page; it should then be ok to just re-use that tag on any subsequent files. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrific! Yea, the initial email contained a link to the first image I uploaded. Thanks again for all your help. --Zackmann08 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Your premature closing of an RfE without obtaining consensus first.

[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I posted my reply.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you planning on responding? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that as an admin, you are required to justify your actions. First, you blocked an editor against consensus and then you closed an RfE without consensus. Perfection is not expected from admins, but that's 2 bad mistakes in a row. You need to explain why the community should entrust you with the tools. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave you all the answers that were needed. When you started commenting on the AE closure, you were simply late to the party; the consensus of administrators had already formed and was stable, and AE threads commonly get closed whenever that is the case. If you are not happy with the outcome, that is your prerogative, but don't claim I didn't explain myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works here at Wikipedia. When a new editor offers a fresh perspective, you need to take the time to examine their analysis, not bowl them over because you have the admin bit. You closed down the thread only '6 minutes after I posted. Do you honestly think that all the AE admins had a chance to read the post or consider the issues I raised? It's one thing if you admit that you screwed up. Like I said, perfection is not expected from admins. But it's quite another if you don't think you've done anything wrong, because you're likely to repeat the same problematic behavior. AE requires admins who carefully weigh the facts, not admins who jump the gun, and you did it twice in a row. Personally, I'd rather work things out with you and I'd rather not file an ArbCom case, but you abused your admin tools twice, and you need to justify why the community should trust you again. You're not helping yourself by being evasive. Please help me to resolve this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is how consensus works on this project: consensus can stabilize and be formally called even while a single observer is still unhappy with it and still wants to argue about it. In this case, consensus among uninvolved administrators formed between the edits by myself (13:01), ErrantX (16:31), myself again (17:25), John Carter (17:28), T. Canens (18:40), and Seraphimblade (18:40). Your objections were raised at 17:53 and stood on the page for more than four hours, until my closure at 22:03. During these four hours, none of the admins who agreed with the closure chose to take up your points. At least three admins (me included) were active on the page after you made your opinion known; at least one other was online during that time and may have seen it, but did not choose to respond. Thus, your objections were known; if nobody took them up it was presumably because they didn't convince people. The fact that you chose to expand your argument once more at 21:56 didn't change the situation.

I committed the heinous crime of sealing a consensus with which you personally disagreed, that's the long and the short of it. To present that as an act of admin abuse is, frankly, outrageous. I consider this matter closed now. My obligation to explain and justify my admin actions does not extend to being available for continued pestering indefinitely. Your postings on this matter have been repetitive; more repetitions will most likely be ignored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If this was an ordinary discussion, your premature close would have been reverted, and then consensus could be obtained naturally. But since you're an admin, it can't be reverted by members of the community. So, we are back where we started. Why should the community entrust you to use the tools?

Again, I am trying to resolve this dispute in good faith. Calling good faith attempts at dispute resolution as "pestering" only undermines your case because it doesn't appear as if you're providing a good faith attempt to resolve this issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:AE is to cut through nonsense and resolve issues that are causing disruption, and which often require considerable experience from dedicated admins who work in the area. The admins and onlookers at AE need no assistance in deciding whether a particular action needs to be overturned or addressed in some fashion—if there is no one to support a claim that a problem has occurred, there is no problem, and the current discussion is a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what consensus looks like.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no, that's what an editor making minor stylistic tweaks to a posting of his looks like. Was that really the diff you meant to link to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely, you can figure out that I was referring to the entire discussion. Does this really need to be spelled out? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange. I don't know where in that page you see anything like a consensus for or against anything – to me it looks rather like a lot of people disagreeing with a lot of other people. But I suggest you don't waste your time further explaining it to me. I am well aware of what is going on on that page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sabyasachi's grand finale collection of 2008.jpg

Hi there,

I am quite new with wikimedia commons, can you help me with this image, the image is retrieved from flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21481508@N07/2981926588/in/photostream/

i have even mentioned the individuals name who posted this on the website...however, i cudn't find the licence of this website...i saw another image taken from the same site & the licence appears there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manisharora4.jpg......

can u plz help me this???

regards Callousfreak (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The image on Flickr is described as "all rights reserved", so it is not under a free license that we can use. In this situation, the only way we could possibly use the image would be if it fulfilled our criteria for non-free content, and I don't think it does. Your description in the non-free use rationale doesn't really make a case why the article needs this particular image. Could a new photograph that somebody might take of some other fashion show of this person not serve as an illustration just as well? If it could, then using this one instead is out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions

What kind of sanctions? I am involved in MMA, and would like to know about them. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Look a few sections above on the WP:AN page, under #MMA sanction proposal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean exactly? Does this mean removing MMA from wikipedia? I dont support that if thats what that means. MMA deserves to be on here, like any other sport. And the editors do not deserve to be harassed by deletionists. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's got nothing directly to do with deletion. It just means that whenever editors (from either camp) behave in an aggressive, unconstructive manner, the threshold for admins to hand out blocks or other sanctions will be far lower than it's been up to now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I just hope it's not one sided. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello, please close this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karthikndr. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like somebody has done so already. A pity it had to end like this, but I hope you'll understand I had to raise these objections. Let me say again that I appreciate that you finally came clear about those image issues; that will certainly make it easier for you if and when you decide to give it another try later. For now, it was certainly the wisest decision to retract, as it would otherwise have resulted in a frustrating pile-on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hie, I have sent you an email. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello brother, I would face this embarrassment and would come back in flying colors with in an year. I'm quite stressed out now, hence will ping you when back, if you can help me and mentor me. I strongly feel WP India needs a better admin, and would make it, not now, but after being an all round editor. Will need your help! Thanks and cya soon. :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

non free stuff

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise, you seem very knowledgable in the areas of non-free content. So I'd like to ask you, do you think File:I Not Stupid screenshot 2.jpg and File:I Not Stupid screenshot 4.jpg should stay and qualify for fair use? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pics

Uhh, why would you delete these Simpsons pics when there was no consensus? Many of them passed GAC and even FAC with the pics in. CTF83! 11:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

See previous DRV of 25 November for a preceding batch of similar kinds (closed by another admin), and multiple precedents. I deleted those where no tangible argument for NFCC#8 conformance was made, either in the FUR (which in almost all these cases was entirely boilerplated and devoid of concrete reference to the specific image and article, and thus prima facie invalid) or in the FFD (as the two stereotyped "keep" votes never addressed the individual NFCC case of the specific images either). In these situations, the "delete" argument of the nomination statements, even though itself also boilerplated, remained valid and stood unchallenged; hence the deletion. I've so far skipped those cases where I could see at least some kind of discussion-worthy claim to NFCC#8 relevance, and/or some actual debate in the FFD involving specific, substantial keep votes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

VladimirMeraklija84

Ok, can you please help me tag these since they were recomended for deletion, they are not in any way taken without consent, but given to me by their authors personally. Files concerned are in FK FAP article as well as Priboj City Stadium article. I tried to fix them, but obviously I do not have enough experience. This is a very important info for me as well as FK FAP. I reside in the United States, but I have direct contact with the club.

geezerlaw

I received a notification that this photo *File:Kristina Vaculik & Elena Davydova.jpg was going to be deleted. It is a personal photo given to me by the mother of the subject to put on web re daughter. Can you unrestrict? I have asked her to send in a consent but she is away and not sure if I have given her the correct instrucitons.

ankhmorpork again

user ankhmorpork is edit warring on dhimmi-page again. he is also gaming my 1-rr restriction.[15]

RE:Karen Kondazian

Hi, Can her head shot be used? Also, Is there any way to put the picture up or do they all have to be free use. Since Karen does own the pictures...I could ask if she wants to do this.

I'm all set. I resubmitted the picture as free use.

Rada Cutlery Page

You deemed it as unambiguous advertising. I was simply giving the general information about the company. Any advice or help would be appreciated. Along with this, I have added credible references to Rada Mfg Co. page. I wanted your input on the Rada Cutlery page as these two are two different divisons.

Thanks, KightIa

thanks.... begzada

thanks for helping For Page Begzada 18:06, 27 Sep 2012 --BeyPeople (talk)--

About the Image: Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg

Dear Sir,

With due respect, I would like to draw your attention to the following fact that about a couple of months ago I have created an Article on Wikipedia with the Title: Stefan Brunnhuber. The link to the Wikipedia Article is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brunnhuber. On that Article, I have uploaded some images. All of them were deleted by you. One of the image was named as Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg. The Link to the image file is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg. Mr. Stefan Brunnhuber has personally contacted Wikipedia through Email and the Wikipedia Authority has approved the image called Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg with the Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stefan_Brunnhuber.jpg. So, shall I re-post the image on WIKIMEDIA Common? Or is there anything else that you can suggest me to do. I would eagerly wait for your reply.

I, therefore, hope that you would be kind enough to give me a solution about the problem and oblige me thereby.

I remain, Yours Sincerely, Sourov00.

Propose adding guidance on etymology sections

Hello Future! I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Propose adding guidance on etymology sections. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 December 13#File:Coachs Daughter.jpg

I've made a reply and an update. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fringe

I removed the latest fringe claim added by Antidiskriminator and as it's almost certain that he'll revert it back without admin intervention, please remind him some of the basics of wikipedia if he does so.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As expected.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

FTR

Back during the Beatles RfC closure discussion you repeatedly threatened to block me over my alteration of two quotes several days prior to your first threat. Well, the first quote, from Schinder and Schwartz was changed to Big "T", the original source uses lowercase. As for the other, a spoken quote from Harrison, during the mediation closure discussion you said: "Again: if these are meant to be renderings of originally spoken utterances from Lennon, there is no problem at all – anybody is free to spell them in whichever way they like", well that's exactly what the second quote was, a clumsy, unsourced quote to something Harrison said according to Ingham. Therefore, your block would have been unjustified, stale and since you were clearly involved in the dispute, inappropriate. I think an apology is in order. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, not really, my warning still stands. Of course, the fact that in these two particular instances the facts have turned out to be what they are means that there isn't a problem about these particular cases, but that's not the position you were defending back in that discussion – you wanted a general license to change the spellings in other cases too. Regarding that claim, my warning continues to be valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You !voted in the previous poll and added evidence (the corpus test), doesn't that make you too involved to block me in regard to issues related to the mediation dispute? Anyway, your theoretical assertion that I was going to change a bunch of quotes is flat wrong. I sought clarification as to whether or not it would be allowable per the Wikipedia MoS. As it turned out, editors there agreed with me. I'm curious, why do you think you are not too involved in this dispute to block me over two edits? Are you gonna block User:Steelbeard1 for this edit? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be "involved" if I had been in a conflict with you over the RfC, but I wasn't – don't forget that I voted on the same side as you. And the block warning was still not over those particular two edits, but over your clearly announced intention to press for a general practice of "adapting" the spelling of written sources. If you didn't intend to actually go through with it and make such edits, good for you; what I was telling you was that you'd be blocked if you did that. And your claim that your proposal found agreement is pretty thin, given the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 133#Allowable minimal change per MoS quote, where nobody defended your suggestion after it had been thoroughly demonstrated how you had been misquoting and misusing those style guides. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration case request concerning yourself

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise. As a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Arbitration concerning yourself, I have delisted the case request. NW (Talk) 18:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had been wondering if it would go away before the world ends tomorrow, so I guess getting notified of it by the sounds of nuclear warfare is sorta fitting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas !

Happy Christmas time

I wish you a merry Christmas and a Happy new year.

Albanianp

I join the above and wish you also a Wonderful New Year. And my gift is to show you that I promised Santa to be a good boy in the New Year. (Well since 20 years I also promise to lose weight and quit smoking but... :-) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Headlines

Are images of cropped headlines from 19th century newspaper articles considered PD regardless of copyright claims? I was a bit confused by the copyright logos placed by NY Times on archived articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice one

Seasons greetings and thanks for this [16]. Although, if you really want to get an infoboxer to shut up, all you have to do is ask a pertinent question [17]. Four months later and I'm still waiting for a reply. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:File source problem with File:JCIntal Mixers.jpg

I updated the summary but I have a problem with the excerpt since I got it generally from a news website. PitsConferGuests 04:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Out of the topic, I once semi-protected my page but some experienced editor made me revert it (I think it was WormThatTurned).

Thanks for clarifying the source. I've deleted the image, because it was a copyright violation. You can't just take an image from somewhere and claim it is under a free license if it really isn't; please don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbs etc.

Re [18] - thanks, I was beginning to doubt my own sanity. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Deletion review for File:THOH8censor.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:THOH8censor.png. 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. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Non-free rationale for File:STBoughBreaks.jpg

I uploaded that image years ago along with a bunch of others for various Star Trek episodes, and since then others have deleted and/or replaced my images because they think theirs were better and what not - I really don't care, but for this image I had a good rationale written for it that seemed satisfactory until someone else decided to change it on me. So again, I replaced the rationale with my original text - if it's not good enough then do whatever with it because I'm sick of babysitting things around when someone suddenly thinks it's not good enough. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

Hello Future, and a happy New Year! Sorry to trouble you, but you'll probably notice it soon enough. There's an edit war in Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and proposals for move of the article. This is a result of the appearance of a new account, Mr. Seafall (talk · contribs), but if he is not a sockpuppet I will eat my hat: article creation with proper referencing on the fifth edit, and a proper move proposal on the tenth? Something stinks...Constantine ✍ 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me in understanding fair use rights :) I have removed the use of the image that I had uploaded in Mysore Airport, when an image of the same building can be freely created. Raghav vs (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename discussion

It has been nearly two years since the last discussion, the least you could do is avoid chiming in with some administrative nonsense until someone else has actually weighed in on the matter. You may have just successfully derailed the process before it even got started.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your log on ARBR&I

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise. Cla68 removed the log of the warning you issued to Mors Martell from WP:ARBR&I. Since he made the edit without any discussion anywhere on wikipedia, reversing an administrative decision, his edit appeared to me to be vandalism and I reverted it at such. If he wishes to challenge the arbcom motion concerning restoring edits of Echigo mole, he can do so, but he cannot stage a protest by vandalising arbcom pages. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You are making it very difficult for people to continue providing support in this area. On the topic of R&I, and in regard to trolling from banned users, you are correct in principle, but evidence is mounting that you have no idea how to protect yourself or the community from abuse. Your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a person who thrives on conflict—what possible good could come from reverting an established editor (particularly on an arbitration page, and with a blatantly incorrect edit summary of "rvv"—see WP:VAND). If you won't implement WP:DENY, the community may have to do it for you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The way of dealing with trolling in this case was simple. Firstly a report at wikiproject Open proxies. After one further edit from the proxy, the proxy was blocked for 2 years by Kuru. I then filed an SPI report "for the record". Reaper Eternal confirmed that the sockmaster was Echigo mole. Is that what you're objecting to? Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted that edit, leaving the matter up to arbitrators or administrators. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• A small correction also. The instruction to me logged on WP:ARBR&I reads. "Mathsci is instructed to refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case." That evidently did not apply in this particular case. Nevertheless I still agree with your advice that, given the logged warning to Mors Martell (now back in place), there was no need in this case for an AE report. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

peacock tag on Olav Zipser

Greetings, with regards the peacock tag on Olav Zipser I assume this adds the comment - This article may contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Please remove or replace such wording and instead of making proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. (January 2013) -

Please can you clarify and advise as to how best update the article so as to satisfy this peacock tag. Are there specific sections that I should put into separate articles, what is your advice?

User:QuadtrippleaQuadtripplea (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Accuracy International AWM 338.jpg

Someone may be uploading the same image that was deleted a while ago. --George Ho (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the same person, me. I was asked to re-submit it with the correct ratioanle which I then did, however you have now deleted it, which means I have to submit it it for a THIRD time. Twobells (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who told you that, but I'm afraid it won't work – sorry about the confusion if indeed you were given that advice. As the thread on Wikipedia:Non-free content review has confirmed, these images could be replaced with free ones (which can in principle be created, even if none may exist now.) Per WP:NFCC#1, that really kills it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE#Maurice07

• Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor who you have previously warned under WP:ARBMAC is now up for discussion at WP:AE#Maurice07. The complaint is one of nationalistic edit warring on topics related to Greece and Turkey. See also a report at AN/EW that was closed by forwarding it to AE. There was also a previous ANI from September 2012 in which he was blocked for revert warring about the placement of Turkey in Europe in a series of articles about diplomatic missions. Your ARBMAC warnings to him were in April 2012 and December 2012 though I don't believe they were logged. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, saw it (and had seen it coming), thanks. I'd certainly say sanctions are appropriate and necessary here. He is the kind of editor that just jumps from one petty POV issue to the next all the time. I don't think I should be taking admin action there though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Arvaniten

Es wurden früher nur die Albaner in Griechenland Arvaniten gennant, sonst nirgendwo anders. Aber nach dem Kritirien des Sprachgebrauches leben heute nur 200.000 Arvaniten. Liebe Grüße--Albanianp (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, nicht ganz klar, was du da zu sagen versuchst (ist da ein "nie" zuviel?) Aber wenn du das meinst, was ich vermute, dann irrst du dich. In der Quelle, die du zitierst, wird "Arvaniten" nicht spezifisch für die Albaner in Griechenland verwendet, sondern als das griechische Wort für Albaner allgemein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Seen this article?

Here. Do you think it may be considered NPOV editing? Have a good year (355 days left. :-) --E4024 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer you archive my talk if not interested. I know that this is a voluntary work. Thanks all the same. --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File upload procedure

According to Masem [19], the new prompted inputs at WP:File Upload Wizard that then automatically craft meaningful NFC rationales are down to you, so here's

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		for inventing and building something that is a huge step in the right direction, and hugely impressive Jheald (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, I appreciate this coming from you. Yes, WP:FUW was mostly written by me, about a year ago. It was quite a bit of work too, because I had to learn quite a lot of new Javascript in the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He/she learned nothing from the ban

User:Magyarcsaba has returned to his/her old habits after the expiration of the six months ban which you have imposed upon him/her, according to arbitration resolution. Namely he/she engages in contentious name changes in respect to some Eastern European localities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Adelayo-some-girls.jpg

I added the information as the template suggested, but... You and I are both pretty experienced editors. If, after reading my response, you really think that image is inappropriate, why not just delete it? Let's see if we can't find a better image together? I think my reasoning will hold the image, but if you still think it's problematic, just delete it, there's no reason for tagging and debate. I am sure that together we can find a solution that satifies your concerns, and still gets an image into the article. How about it? Joint Wiki-mission? :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid we don't have much flexibility here. It's just an open-and-shut WP:NFCC#1 case: photograph of living person, replaceable as a matter of principle with any new free photograph that could be created. If you haven't located a free alternative yet, chances are that none might exist right now, but that doesn't change a thing; we'll just have to wait until someone manages to get one. Or you could try contacting her and asking for a release. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded a line drawing to replace the copyrighted image but for some reason it won't show. can you help? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have deleted the free image as "unsuitable" without any explanation. May I ask you why? Before you say that the image was of low quality, I will warn you that I am a semi-professional artist, and have sold a drawing or two. Can you please explain why it was unsuitable? And why it should not have gone up for discussion? I am trying very hard to get some sort of image up for this article. I will create some more original artwork. It will be an improvement over the line drawing. I will upload it. I will expect a dialogue to take place before it is simply deleted, please. Thank you and be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, yes, I'm afraid it was of very low quality. It was so poor that it didn't indeed resemble her in the slightest, and so unflattering that it really would have been a WP:BLP violation to display it in her infobox implying it was her. At the same time, while it got her facial features all wrong, the rest of the image was still so obviously close to the photograph you copied from that it would have counted as a derivative work of it, and hence as a copyright violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

While i appreciate your expert critisism of my artwork, (I assume you have judged artwork in the past and are not giving a simple layman's opinion?) I will oblige you and produce something completely different in every way, if for no other reason than this silly discussion isn't reduced to your critique of my artistic talent. Give me a few hours please. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I must say I find it difficult to reconcile your demand of having that scribble treated as a serious piece of artwork with the picture I had of you as a reasonable, good-faith contributor. It is hard to explain your behaviour in ways other than assuming you either suffer from a rather serious overestimation of your talent, or you are simply trolling. It would be nice to see you return to normal, soon-ish, because I'm likely to lose my patience with you rather quickly otherwise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is there some reason for this hostility? This may come to you as a bit of a surprise but not all artwork looks exactly like the subject depicted. And while you may not appreciate the effort, and while i am not a full-blown professional artist, you should be aware that I have sold my "scribbles" for real money on occasion. Now there is no reason to be insulting here, and no reason to be assuming bad faith, and no reason to be even having such a conversation. I am making no demands. I am, in fact, trying very hard to accomidate you in light of these uncalledfor comments. I admit that the line drawing may not have been my best work, but I told you I will create a new drawing, put extra effort into it, and upload it. It will be a drawing that I am sure will survive any consensus to delete. If, at that point, you are still not satisfied, then I do not think it will be unreasonable to demand to have that discussion to determine consensus, at that time. Thank you. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tombstone of William Hahn.jpg

On this one, there is copyright information missing? Can you specify? I uploaded that one a very long time ago, but I remember searching pretty hard for a free source. Can you tell me what is missing? I'm using that image in an article on my own userspace, so if it turns out we have to delete it I'll probably replace it with my own artwork. (I'll take a public domain tombstone and carve my own funny epitaph into it) Still, I'd like to use the real one, so if you can please specify exactly what I need for it, i'll swing into action. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, several things. First, it lacks an actual source. You say it's all over the web (which indeed it is), but you don't give any link to what you believe is the original author or publication. The link to http://www.nassauchurch.org/cemetery/index.html doesn't actually have the image, nor does it contain a relevant licensing statement, and I can find no trace that that website ever hosted it in the first place. The other link, http://www.geni.com/people/William-Hahn/6000000013261397768, has an image of the stone but it's a different photograph. Then, there is no licensing tag. You gave a description in which you imply you believe it is in the public domain, but you don't actually provide an explanation of why and how it would have become so. Since it is evidently a fairly recent (digital) photograph, there would have been no way in which it could have fallen into the public domain automatically, through expiry, so the only way it could conceivably be public domain (failing PD-USGov status, which seems unlikely) is if its author explicitly waived copyright. For substantiating that, we'd need that original author's explicit statement. Nothing short of that will do. The fact that it is mirrored on many websites doesn't mean anything – these kinds of humour sites routinely copy images without any regard to copyright, so there is no trustworthy information to be got from them. So, essentially we are left with a simple case of "found it on the web somewhere", which normally means routine deletion.

The solution is of course simple: Find a friendly wikipedian who lives close to that place and ask them to go and take a new picture for you. The gravestone itself is presumably public domain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I know somewhere on that historical society site they have a public domain statement, I'll find it later. If I can't I'll just make a placeholder for now. Eventually, I'll trace it down thanks.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

Greetings, Future. There's a discussion over naming going on at this page. Seems some find "Slavic" problematic. Are there other alternatives besides the equally (if not more) problematic "Macedonian"? I'd appreciate your expert input if you have the time. --Taivo (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Football

We have permission from that website, but it is unclear did they have right to give us images. I uploaded the photo before I became suspicious on that issue. Since then I didn't upload any image from that website, I deleted dozens and replaced them with images from Commons. -- Bojan  Talk  05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside from IRC conversation, no.-- Bojan  Talk  20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Over the years I have been constantly prompted of this issue and I have grown QUITE tired of it. I am honestly tired of template posts. At first it was that images were required to have a fair use rationale. Now my rationale is found to be "too generic" What exactly are you looking for? What is missing? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An explanation why this specific image is necessary for this specific article, i.e. what specifically it is meant to illustrate and why that particular thing could not be understood adequately without it. That's what the policy has always demanded, so don't go blaming me for inventing new rules. It means that rationales for non-routine items such as screenshots must be individual (rule of thumb: if you find yourself using the same wording for more than one file, you are almost certainly doing something wrong.)

I can assure you I am just as tired of this issue as you are, but since about 95% of all editors who upload TV and movie images have persistently conspired to systematically ignore and subvert the policy and have been misusing the process again and again and again, they will have to be reminded of it again and again and again, until they finally get it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I didn't see that in this particular case, the new file I meant to tag was actually overwriting a much older file, which was yours, so the notification would probably have better gone to the new uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I am quite tired of dealing with this issue for years now. I am tired of wasting my time on this issue since I will never ever be able to satisfy wikipedia's policies on the matter which is evolving to the point of banning fair-use material for the sake of banning it due to personal quests of people (consensus? What's that!). Not because the law demands it. I realize you are uninterested in what I have to say given you did not bother notifying me on my talk page so can I ask you to bulk delete all of my uploads? I do not care if they are freely licensed, salvageable, with a valid fair use rationale and etc. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js

I've been bothered by some pre-filled file information fields recently, and I started a conversation up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Uploaded file summary. Any chance you can join the conversation there since you're the main author of the form? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

topic ban

• I was just wondering if when giving out the ban if you had seen this comment in wilddawgs talk page by a Luchuslu

. I reviewed all the active AfDs on WP:MMA and the page on WT:MMA and only Paralympiakos, Sepulwiki, PortlandOregon97217 support your interpretation of WP:NMMA.

I can't speak for the other two, but I for sure am not a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of wilddawg. From what I understand he is somewhere on the east coast, and I'm on the west coast. I fully invite you to verify this yourself with all the checkuser tools and whatnot. Anyway, I would just like to say that the three mentioned + wilddawg represents about half of the regular posters over at the mma wikiproject. Yet at an afd the four of us seem to get stomped out and accused of just making up notability guidelines and not conforming to consensus reached at WP:MMATIER. You can't say that four people who are semi-active at applicable project don't matter when applying "consensus" reached in a subsection of the mma wikiproject. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if consensus could be reached at an afd. So why can't WP:mmatier be adjusted via the talk at an afd based on four seperate peoples imput? I'm not saying thats a reason to keep articles. I'm just saying That is not logical. I could go on and on... Anyway, I'm just saying that Wilddawg was not alone in his frustration. I'm sure you are aware the two of us were outed by some unknown assailant. So at the least there is someone out there who wants to silence us, and over trivial matters. of course you could say "if it is trivial then why are you writing about it?"? Well, because someone from this project posted my real name at the least. I figured I might as well say a word about a like minded individual who has a different than mine main area of editing interest on Wikipedia (I guess formats and such). Thanks for reading. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was JonnyBonesJones. Thanks to him, now I know both PortlandOregon's and Willdawg's real names. Paralympiakos is definitely not a sockpuppet. He is arguably the best editor in WP:MMA's history. Can't speak for Sepulwiki. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What you addressed is relatively insignificant in comparison to the body of the arguement. JBJ is just a shell for some group of little kids somewhere. Furthermore, I stamd by my statement because when you include sockpuppets (and we know the project is awash in them, dont we?) there aren't that many bodies there. That is why I referenced the "vocal minority". I love how you follow my trail Llama, and remind people that you specifically know my real name (creepy). Not suspicious at all. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are really important to me. I only came here to see if Willdawg had complained for the topic ban. Beware your words, as they can be considered personal attacks. Do you really believe I am the one doing this harm to you? We may have had differences, but I respect you. I live in another continent, so there are few possibilities of me being a sockpuppet. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume in good faith that this is the one time you just meandered in randomly, rather than following our contributions and attempting to counter our individual arguements wherever we go. I also think it is suspicious that wilddawg says that he is "going to be intermittent", and then suddenly he is topic banned for 3 months. Outrageous. Especially since he was one of the few real mma fans that I could count over at mmaproject. It is a project alright; it's a regular Chicago over there. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also a MMA fan. I'm not a deletionist. Before you and Willdawg came here, I was the one updating results and adding references to articles, promoting them to DYK or GA status... You can verify that in articles' histories. Willdawg has good intentions as Drmies said in ANI, but he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and doesn't know how Wikipedia works. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

I was going to close that AN/I discussion, noting the topic ban, but I wasn't sure of the ban's scope. I would assume "MMA articles, broadly construed," but I don't want to step on any toes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for checking back on it. My wording on Willdawg111's talkpage was "any edits to any articles or discussions concerning MMA-related topics". Yeah, I guess that implies the usual "widely construed" stuff, but I think we don't really have much of a delimitation problem about what counts as "MMA-related", do we? To me it seems as if it's pretty self-explanatory: events, organizations, fighters etc. who are involved in MMA. Not much of a choice between "wide" and "narrow" construals with this one, is there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to these sorts of debates, they tend to spill over everywhere. (See WP:LAME#Hummus and friends) So I just wanted to make sure. Thanks! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Salute

Per [1]

Heh. I'm a very non-military person, but I'll happily wave back in response :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:István Urbányi in Eydhafushi.jpg

Hi. I have added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to the File:István Urbányi in Eydhafushi.jpg. Thanks ZZ47 (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm afraid that won't be sufficient. We can't accept a permission for use on Wikipedia alone. According to our own principles, we use only images that are free also for re-use by others, for any purpose. If you can get your friend to release the image under such terms, it will be fine; otherwise I'm afraid deletion will be unavoidable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mikemikev ipsock

Please could you block 115.21.210.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Deskana (thanks). Mathsci (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No-FoP situations for buildings

Hello, I need a help for No-FoP situations for buildings issue. A month ago User:Stefan2 said at commons discussion, "English Wikipedia may choose to host images which aren't acceptable on Commons and still refer to the images as "free". For example, English Wikipedia has templates such as ...... and Template:FoP-USonly which are used for images which are very often not acceptable on Commons." However, Current WP:NFC page does not clearly say about this issue, as this statement: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." I think the statement needs to be rewritten since some countries do not recognize Freedom of Panorama for buildings (but US does), and if Template:FoP-USonly is a valid license tag, please consider suggesting that image uploaders should upload no-FoP building photos to English Wikipedia, not to Commons, and rewriting File upload wizard page to educate the uploaders. --Puramyun31 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Arydberg at Aspartame controversy

An editor whom you topic banned from aspartame-related articles in October 2011 has returned. The ban does not appear to have helped him realize the error of his ways. There's a thread at ANI. Skinwalker (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Lagoo sab

I got an email saying this is a probable sock of Lagoo sab, as you have dealt with him before can you give your opinion please? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why the indefinite ban???

Hey, this just to question you as to why user: Harishrawat11 was blocked indefinitely. I have seen his edits and reviewed some of his articles and I am appalled by the fact that his account has been blocked indefinitely because his edits are exemplary and he is also part of various WikiProjects and Portals... I wish to make an honest request to you to please revert the block and allow this editor to return to Wikipedia... It seems that he has spent a lot of time editing Wikipedia articles... He quotes proper references, has created good articles, has good editing scrutiny and his contributions are noteworthy...I completely understand that user: Blamecivil95 is but of course a sock puppet of user: Vrghs Jacob, not to mention I am also a staunch supporter of removal of damaging sock puppets, and Harishrawat11's edits are similar, but without consequential proof I believe that you were wrong to block his account... And so although you may consider this to be and example of meat puppeting, which it isn't, I honestly request you from one editor to another to revert this block... It is my personal opinion, not that I ask you to treat this as a testimony,this user does not appear to be a sock puppet... The rest I leave to you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayupai95 (talk • contribs)

Harishrawat11 recreated, among other similar articles, Directorate of Income Tax Intelligence and Criminal Investigation, a main focus of editing of earlier socks. Just like the earlier versions, this new article was cobbled together from copy-and-pasted text from various government websites. Thus, to me, his mode of operation is indistinguishable from that of the earlier sock farm, and even if he was not a sock, he'd still be a serial copyright violator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, although I do not wish to fuel this topic any further and start a heated debate, I must let you know that Directorate of Income Tax Intelligence and Criminal Investigation, in my opinon is a child article that he had to create because he saw the need for it. I believe that he knew it was blocked because after a close scrutiny of what he has done before the creation of the article i found that he had asked user:SpacemanSpiff whether he could create it, I would like you to check this user's talk page if you can. The article is not botched up from govt websites as first of all there is no government website with the info. I think you are wrong in your judgement her because he only referred to Law Enforcement in India information.I would say the calling of this editor as a serial copyright violator uncalled for and wrong because there are only a handful of articles of this editor's that have been found to have violated copyrights. I seriously do not wish to extend this conversation and get into a fight about it... If your decision is going to remain unchanging then so be it, but you should know that I feel that this editor deserves another chance...Ajayupai95 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bam Aquino's photos

Hi, just want to ask why all the photos under the Bam Aquino entry were deleted right away. I am not yet finished editing the tags for each image because of the very slow connection. Just want to ask if I have violated any rules or guidelines regarding images? Please guide me since it has been a long time since I used the wiki platform and I am not very familiar with new rules regarding uploading and citing images and copyrights. Our group own the images and we are just enriching Bam Aquino's page so would you be kind to guide us if what's the best license tag to use? Also, is there a way to get back the images and it's descriptions and I promise to use the proper tag already. Pleas advise. Thanks! Huit08 (talk)

If you have problems with slow connections, I strongly recommend you always make sure to include all the relevant information in the original upload. In the present case, I had to delete the images because you indicated they were taken from an external website (which we must always assume is non-free), while not providing any indication why it should be thought there was a free license. If you indeed represent the website and are entitled to license them, then please confirm this by either (a) adding a visible license statement (e.g. a "cc-by-sa" annotation) on the Facebook page where the images are, or (b) contacting our copyright registry at "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org", preferably from an e-mail address hosted by an official web domain of the subject. However, let me also say that you should not overdo it with the image additions. Articles must be kept in a properly detached, neutral and encyclopedic style, so a whole gallery with personal photographs like what you added previously would really not be appropriate. I'd recommend just one good portrait photograph, and if you wish perhaps at most one more showing him in some important professional role. Keep in mind our guidelines on conflict of interest and the fact that you are not supposed to use the article for promotion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Change at Wikipedia:Not

not interested
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Future, That change over at WP:NOT was hardly pointy. That was the consensus (as I demonstrated ) at both the MFD and the DRV. It was 16 to 1 against me. Therefore I changed WP:NOT per that consensus.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Kill Your Darlings 2013.jpg

You added {{subst:dfu}} to this file. Note that the file currently is up for deletion at WP:FFD, so if you have concerns about the image, you might wish to state those concerns at the FFD page too. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers...

G'day FPaS. Nice one. I (and others) appreciate you pulling on the gumboots and wading into the POV-morass that is the Balkans in WWII. I won't piss on your pocket any further. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As promised

As promised I am informing you of the comment where I explained why I reverted your excision of Image:Colombian security official appearing to wear Red Cross ID as a ruse.jpg from Operation Jaque.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Old FfDs

Please see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_18 Some 12 are still open. Can you please close them and delete as necessary? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit

FPAS, I saw that you reverted a section on my talk page. Can you please fill me in as to why? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that one. That ANI notification was fake. The person who left it was on some kind of rampage and was leaving these notices randomly on about a dozen pages, basically as vandalism. Sorry if the removal may have caused about as much confusion as the notice itself would have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

IP 99.129.112.89‎

I am sure you noticed me trying to talk to this IP - to no avail whats so ever. What does concern me is the edit summary "not new and still bothering me to the point of finding my location which is petty". This may have been a slip of the tongue - indicating hes been here before - thus may already be blocked. I have no clue what could be done, but would conclude he will be block shortly anyways.Moxy (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:The Duke of Madras

Hi FP@s,

Do you mind if I unblock this user for now? I've had a look at the history of this kerfluffle, and I think it can be traced to somewhat unfair accusations of "vandalism" right out of the gate. I suspect if I was new, that would piss me off too. can I unblock if I keep an eye on their contribs for a while? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, you seem to have gone offline. I'm going to take a slight risk of insulting you and unblock without your OK; I think there might be a benefit to rushing the unblock as opposed to waiting. I'll keep an eye out and reblock if I'm wrong. Hope there aren't any hard feelings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, not that I wouldn't trust your good judgment in such a matter, but as far as I'm concerned, the way my bullshit-o-meter is calibrated today (as I said, it may be the weather or something), I find it difficult to read his reactions as those of a reasonable and potentially constructive contributor who is just a bit pissed off. Never made a single contribution to encyclopedic content, simply took an elaborate joke userpage and changed some of it (in a not particularly funny way), then immediately went up in flames and smoke and maintained that state for like, how long, six hours? Nah, not really. But, sure, if you want, do with him as you see fit. I'd first wait to see if he's willing to give us some idea about what he's actually planning to work on, content-wise, and of course promise to give BWilkins a rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, not gone offline, just took a bit of time looking over his history again and typing this response. But no offense taken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I should have waited 4 more minutes. My bullshit-o-meter calibration may be off in the other direction. But while his approach and attitude on Bwilkins' talk page was horribly unproductive, I put myself in his shoes for a minute, and I can imagine a genuine sense of outrage. I understand your skepticism, but I felt it worth the time to try. Probably not going to come back, anyway... But thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. By the way, can you also take care of the autoblocks? He is probably running into some, given that one of the accounts is still blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do. And, rats, I didn't realize there was an ANI discussion... looks like I unblocked against consensus. Oh well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You were right, I was wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Now he's been posting this [20] link all over the place. If only he knew how much I love that cartoon. It's the perfect illustration of admin abuse. How I can feel with that brave little guy ... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits!

This report has been kept on hold, please suggest what to do with their edits now! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Upin & Ipin episodes

Since u deleted the page, im resoring this page to the original view before i created the individual season pages. Hope u understand. Thank you. --Phuiyarn (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, don't. These summaries are all apparently copied from somewhere on the web, so they are copyright violations. They are also unnecessary, since the individual episodes are utterly non-notable. I don't see any reliable sources providing independent critical coverage of this series in any of the articles I've seen, let alone independent critical coverage of individual episodes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

it is a shot summary for each episodes.its a list of episodes with short summary.--Phuiyarn (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they are still copyright violations, so don't reinsert them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Warning

I think that your comment is unnecessarily harsh. Here is the proof that I am carefully preparing the text related to the subject.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound

You might like to take a look at User talk:Media-hound- thethird, who you blocked earlier: Media-hound seems to be using it as a platform for further attacks on editors. Ignoring the (entirely predictable) attempt to blame me once more for his getting blocked in the first place, Media-hound is now accusing other editors of WP:GAMING, Tendentious editing etc. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that he is permitted to continue to use his talk page as a means to appeal the block, rather than as a means to ensure that his block is extended? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit - he seems also to have posted what appears to be a legal threat: [21]. I'll raise this immediately at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but for the moment, my personal reaction would be to let blocked hounds bark. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Polina Such

Der Gutentag, Fut. Perf. Thanks for taking care of business at the article. IP 99 had dropped me a note but you got to it long before I did, so thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Mahlzeit!

I see your monkey head and raise you... a fruit basket head! De728631 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Files - Anatolian Shepherd

Hi FPAS You deleted files for copyright vio. I had a similar discussion with RHayworth yesterday. This is becoming very tedious. I own the files. Please reinstate. FYI: every image on the Anatolian and Kangal page that has been uploaded by myself, also exists in various forms on other websites and forums. I did not mind to share my images on wiki because the files are already in the public domain. However, because an administrator sees the images exist elsewhere on the www and immediately deletes, the situation is becoming that I have to make public my identity in order to verify there is no copyright vio as I own the images and written content. Bebekve (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

An easier solution is to remove my copyright permissions from my uploaded files and written content, and thereby remove my contributions to the wiki articles. I will edit the articles to reflect this. I think wiki is great but I dont have the time for its high maintenance. Cheers. Bebekve (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Bebekve (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Then" and "now"

That was spot-on, very funny, and oughta be shrined. Haploidavey (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary deletion

I have requested to hide that edit summary (in Asaram Bapu talk page) as it contains serious personal attack against a user ref --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

re File:Certs breathmint 2005 package.jpg

Why'd you delete this? Herostratus (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Do you seriously expect me to spend time discussing this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess not, as long as you restore it. If you want to you can then change the license from own-work-CC to copyright-belongs-to-Mondelēz-International-allowed-under-fair-use. Or if you want I'll do it once you restore it. (I assume that your objection is that the copyright belongs to Mondelēz International, in which case clearly it's allowable under fair use.) Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite.

1. Assuming it's a non free derivative, your argument that your drawing would be "freer" than an alternative photograph of the package did not find any positive echo. Your assertion that your drawing is a "reasonably good" representation of the package is also unconvincing. In fact, especially where non-free works are concerned, "reasonably good" is not good enough: if there is a good encyclopedic reason to show the packaging of a brand product, in order to support a discussion of its marketing, brand strategy and so on, then the least thing we owe the owners is that we provide a faithful and accurate reproduction, rather than a distorted one, to allow an accurate view of the design, intended brand messaging and so on. (Conversely, if it was shown that the package isn't a copyrightable work after all, then there would again be no good encyclopedic reason to resort to merely a "reasonably good" drawing, rather than to an accurate photograph.)
2. Everybody except you seems to agree the whole Betelgeuze story is bizarre and inappropriate, as indeed are also your argumentative shenanigans in defending it. (Don't even think of challenging me into a debate on this point; I don't react well to stuff like that.) You are certainly free to sport original creative works featuring consumer objects orbiting extrasolar bodies of your choice on your user page, just as you would be free to include photographs of yourself clad in the style of a popular comic book hero while ascending some historic landmark building in a European capital, but you are not free to insert that sort of stuff in article space.

In conclusion, I find that if there is a good reason, under WP:NFC, to include an image of the packaging, it should be a photograph. I don't know if such issues have been discussed elsewhere, but there seems to be ample precedent for including that sort of photograph (e.g. here, here, here). Incidentally, I notice that you apparently also avoided using a photograph of the actual product (the individual mints), using a exaggeratedly simple line drawing instead. This is unnecessary, because the mints themselves are most certainly not copyrightable creative works, so a free photograph of them is clearly possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your redirect vote

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of the State of Palestine I interpreted your vote to mean "Redirect to Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority"(and then possibly move the authority article), but the closing admin interpreted it as an ambiguous "redirect" vote, without a particular target. Which did you mean? Please responded at Talk:Coat of arms of the State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Query about deletion of "Being Human (series X)" articles

Hi, I'm a little confused with the recent deletions of the "Being Human (series X)" articles. I would assume that someone would have first tagged them as copyvios before you deleted them. I was just wondering if you could please tell me the parts of these articles that were copyright infringements? It's just the articles were formed from existing information in Being Human (TV series) and List of Being Human episodes with the addition of citations where applicable (I know this was definitely the case with Being Human (series 1) because I made it). If the content was a copyvio then why haven't those articles had any attention? I find it odd because Dannybaby1234 (talk · contribs) created a series of articles in the form of "Being Human (UK series X)" articles just hours before the originals were deleted. Hopefully you will be able to enlighten me as to what has happened here. Kind regards Themeparkgc  Talk  23:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I googled for some of the text in the plot "summaries", and found that they were identical to summaries on multiple other websites, some of which were apparently older than the article (and if I remember correctly, at least in one case the external website had an author credit and date). They were also in the typical unencycopedic style of external TV programme guides (hinting at content rather than really summarizing it, avoiding spoilers and so on; the stuff that serves as appetizers to prospective viewers rather than serving for encyclopedic analysis). If you can provide evidence that these texts were genuinely authored within Wikipedia and then copied, I could reconsider. But they'd still be inappropriate, content-wise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Admittedly I never checked the summaries for copyvios when splitting the content off from List of Being Human episodes (I guess I just presumed because they were there for so long they were fine). I can't really think of a way I could prove either way who was the author of those summaries so I guess it will all have to stay as it is. Again, thanks for your response. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

But the outcome is that the information that had been transposed into these articles is now gone; could we not, as has been done with Season 5, just remove the episode summaries? chrisdonia (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Sudar123

You blocked User:Sudar123 and it seems like he has shown a greater understanding of the rules, can we make the unblock happen please? I'd rather avoid the bureaucracy of taking it to Arbcom, but if that is necessary so be it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently BWilkins has taken this in hand with an offer of unblock under conditions, and I'm quite happy to leave it up to him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quotes and sources

On Vladislav Jonima, some users are questioning the representation of a quote from Oliver Schmitt. They don't possess even the elementary knowledge that is necessary to evaluate German-language sources and yet they reverted me. The quote in question is

...erscheint ein Angehöriger eines alten ethnisch albanischen Adelsgeschlechts, Vladislav Jonima, als Zupan, später als „Graf von Dioclea und Küstenalbanien" Vladislav Jonima, als Zupan, später als „Graf von Dioclea und Küstenalbanien". Der slawische Vorname und die Stellung dieses vornehmen Albaners in einem slawisch dominierten Staat zeigt die enge Verbindung beider ethnischer Elemente, deren Oberschicht im Mittlerlater miteinander verschmolzen war.

,which I represented as "Oliver Jens Schmitt regards his position in Slavic state and (Slavic) name, despite his non-Slavic (Albanian) ethnicity as a sign of close relations between the nobilities of the two groups in the region." and which was reverted to "Swiss historian Oliver Jens Schmitt notes that his name (Slavic), and his position in a Slavic state, is evidence of both Serbian and Albanian element in northern Albania." --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I see a forum mentality and some incivility in this talk. Could you be so kind enough to have a look at that and remove or strike or do whatever you deem necessary? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, but the comment linked above is neither incivil nor forum level, but is focusing on local minority politics, per correspondent article.Alexikoua (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

what is wrong with you...?

Vandalic? Gaulish? Old Prussian? Naw, kidding... impressive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The trick is, of course, that about most of those languages there isn't an awful lot to know in the first place. For instance, if you can say "beer" in Illyrian, you have already mastered about 100% of the attested vocabulary of that language that has been preserved ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:STSC

The user came back and continues tendentious edits without source to Senkaku Islands articles. Please keep a close watch on the behavior of the user.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexander, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sikandar and Alex (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) 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

NFC at Operation Flash

Hi! I noticed you removed several NFC images from the Operation Flash, and I'd like to find out why exactly. I'm now aware that one of those (re Zagreb rocket attacks) violated WP:NFC/UUI #7, but I trust the others may be fair use per WP:NFC/UUI #10 exception. Of course, I'm anything but sure on this - I'm fairly new to NFC, so I'm taking the opportunity to learn from this for future reference. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Appeal of Your Content Action at Continuation War

An appeal is being filed against you at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&action=edit Paavo273 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC) corrected locatin: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit Paavo273 (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct link for you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Content_revert_and_lock_of_Continuation_War_article_and_warning_to_Paavo273. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Just checking

I see at WP:ARBSAQ, you logged on indefinite topic-ban for Knitwitted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I just wanted to triple check that that is still in force before I wade in with my block button since his/her recent edits would so blatantly flout such a ban. Was the ban lifted or are things really as clear-cut as they appear? CIreland (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh. No, do wade ahead. The ban [22] is certainly in force – I'm not aware of any appeal or anything. I now notice I didn't spell out the exact limits when I imposed it, but from the "again" it ought to have been clear that the conditions were the same as the first time round [23], when it was worded to cover "all edits (both article and talk edits, in all namespaces) related to the Shakespeare authorship issue". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item"

I don't see how it can be "non-free" when I took the photo myself. Please explain.Masalai (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're talking about File:Festival in Buin honouring traditional festivity.jpg, right? Well, it is non-free because you declared it to be so. If this photo is your own, you can make it free, by simply placing a free license tag (e.g. {{cc-by-sa}}) on it, and Wikipedia will be much obliged to you if you're willing to do that – but until then, we'll have to go by the letter of what you said and treat it as non-free. A free license tag will mean that you grant the permission to anyone (not just us on Wikipedia) to re-use the photo for any purpose. If that's okay with you, that will be great. But the way you tagged it originally, it seemed like you were saying you wanted to use it only here in this article but wanted to otherwise keep it under control. Which would of course be a legitimate thing for an author to do, from your perspective, but in that case we'd have to regretfully decline using it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Falsification of history in Azerbaijan

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise

Explain, please, deleting this article? We have a lot of academic sources that talk about falsification of history in Azerbaijan by the state. In what article we must describe these sources? Divot (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Same. Can you please explain the reason why you deleted such an article with numerous reliable sources? --Երևանցի ^talk 16:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was obviously a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content, and, as WP:CSD describes, a page intentend solely to disparage its subject. It was also created by an account who is almost certainly a sockpuppet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the answer on the merits of the question. I repeat the question: We have a lot of academic sources that talk about falsification of history in Azerbaijan by the state. In what article we must describe these sources?

"It was also created by an account who is almost certainly a sockpuppet" - it was only translation of russian article. Divot (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"obviously a tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content" if it is POV, you add a template at the top of the page, not delete it. You're an admin, you should know this better than me. And if it was "unencyclopedic in tone and content" you nominate it for deletion, not delete it yourself without asking others' opinion. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you my answer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You did not. My question is: Why didn't you nominate it for deletion instead? As long as I know, Wikipedia is a community, not a dictatorship. The community has to decide whether the article was a "tendentious POV essay, unencyclopedic in tone and content". --Երևանցի ^talk 17:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I told you why: It matched a criterion for speedy deletion. Now please go away; I'm not going to pretend I am treating tendentious agenda editing like yours as if it was a normal activity for legitimate wikipedians to engage in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should I go away. You deleted an article that had numerous academic sources without any discussion. Again, Wikipedia is a community, you alone can't decide whether an article is bad or good. Labeling my activity "tendentious" doesn't prove your point. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the deleted article, but it's Russian counterpart was definitely not an attack page. There does seem to be some disagreement over the speedy deletion, so a course of action if Fut.Perf. believes it to be a valid attack page would be to restore the article in userspace for now and do a proper AfD to get an unbiased consensus. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Because I am the author of this article "Falsification of history in Azerbaijan" in the Russian Wikipedia, and I can provide all the sources for the article, including scans of books. Please restore the article in my subpage, I'll try to add more sources and ask you about neutrality. Divot (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please ask somebody else; you won't get it undeleted from me. I'm firmly of the opinion that the whole idea of having articles like this is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. This material is unwelcome here, and so are people who keep trying to put it back in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but we have a lot of neutral academical sources about falsification of history in Azerbaijan by the state. According Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". We have it, so we can describe it. In what article we must describe these problem and sources? Maybe i'll send you some of them? Divot (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. "falsification of history in Azerbaijan by the state" means state-sponsored falsification of primary sources. This is not an ideological stamp, this is falsification in every sense of the word. Divot (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice request re: Blocking of User:HSchnyder

Hello FP,
I noticed that you blocked User:HSchnyder at 08:41, 12 February 2013. However, I didn't see any notice on the user's talk page (or evidence in its history) that you explained the block. As an editor, I have no problems with the block itself and agree that HSchnyder had difficulties complying with WP:THREAT. I'm used to seeing admins post a notice of a block on the blocked user's talk page and I hope you continue to follow the policy as explained at WP:EXPLAINBLOCK.
Thanks for all your help as an administrator! I'm sure it's often thankless.
- ʈucoxn\^talk 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Being Human

Hi, I notice you've recently deleted the series 1-4 pages for Being Human (UK). Just for clarification, does the 5th page need to remain, or should that also be deleted on the same grounds? drewmunn talk 10:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please link to discussion page when deleting files

Hi, as an admin I was able to view the history of deleted file File:ST-VOY Basics Part 1.jpg and thereby trace the discussion page. In order to help ordinary readers to trace it, please could you link to the discussion page in the edit summary when deleting? – Fayenatic London 17:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of complaints filed against you

You are the subject of complaints filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [24] by Paavo273 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:In the Bedroom film poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:In the Bedroom film poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for an undoing of the two pictures you removed today of Icelandic politicians

I can now see, that you today have deleted the following two images:

• File:Bjarnibenediktssonjr.jpg
• File:Arnipallarnason.jpg

In my reply at both file pages, I have uploaded an argued reason why I think it was okay to keep having them uploaded at the English wikipedia page. The main reason is, that the Icelandic wikipedia page already have acquired a license for the use of the photos, and that they have been accepted to be fully used at the Icelandic wikipedia during the past 4 years. I fail to see or understand why you have now removed those photos from the English wikipedia. Please either undo the change, or post me a reasoned reply. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is really very little flexibility in our policy on such matters. The rule (per WP:NFC#1 is very clear: we need to get a fully free license (i.e. free for re-use elsewhere and for all purposes), or we can't use it. You made it clear in your statement that you were conceding that the license we had was not free in that sense. You also conceded that "a completely free replacement of the official photograph (to be used outside the borders of Wikipedia or any other encyclopedic works) would perhaps also be possible for someone to upload at some point of time". As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, that settles it. Whether or not such a free image already exists is immaterial; what counts is that it is possible as a matter of principle. (And, seriously, a member of parliament, in a smallish democratic country, should be one of the easiest targets to get photographs of. Such people lead immensely public lives. I'm sure he is easier to find – and easier to convince to smile into a camera – than your average poet, industrialist, four-star general or author or whatever else we tend to have articles on.)

As for what the Icelandic Wikipedia does, it's of course beyond my powers to fix, but if they are using these photos, they really ought to stop doing so and they ought to know better. The Icelandic Wikipedia absolutely doesn't have the right to allow itself using such non-free images. This is not just an English Wikipedia rule; they are violating a WikiMedia Foundation rule (see binding resolution) if they are doing this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already provided you the direct links for the Icelandic Wikipedia in my previous reply, but here they are again:

* is:File:Bjarnibenediktssonjr.jpg

* is:File:Arnipallarnason.jpg

My upload of the photos to the English Wikipedia was a direct 1:1 copy. I thought it was okay, as they had been accepted to be used at the Icelandic Wikipedia. If it is indeed true that these photos do not carry a sufficient license, then I think you should at least also contact the Icelandic Wikipedia, and ask them also to remove those photos from their domain. They have used them during the past 4 years for more or less all 63 Icelandic politicians elected to their parliament (at least for those where no user taken photos were available). As far as I understand, they have received an email by the parliament, which in general approves for all the photos of MP's found at the www.althingi.is website to be freely used by any Wikipedia page in the world (as long as it happens for non commercial purposes). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, after taking time to carefully read through the entire WP:NFC policy article, it helped me to understand the situation a bit more. The detail that confused me during my previous upload process of the photos, is that it is not enough for us just to have legal permission (by receiving a "free to use on Wikipedia" or "free to use for non-commercial purposes" licens) in situations where we want to use a photo of a living person (or one with a still active career, in situations where the picture represents how he is encyclopedic recognized by common people at the time of being encyclopedic notable). Because beside of satisfying the "legal" side of the case, we also need to satisfy the "Wiki policy" side of the case. I had accidently missed that second part of it, and was not aware that Wikipedia actively had decided to prohibit the use of images where "only" Wikipedia have been granted a legal license to use them (not being completely free for any kind of use outside the borders of Wikipedia), and that Wikipedia only in the rare alternative make exeptions for use of the "non-free images". Only the moment the politicians are retiring from the parliament, we have the right according to the WP:NFC#UUI policy to add their non-free photo (licensed to Wikipedia), as it then can be argued it was indeed not possible to create a free photo taken at the time during their active carreer (of which the photo needs to be - in order to fulfill its encyclopedic purpose for the use in the article).

To further justify my own actions in the current case, I can tell you that I first searched for an available free image photograph for the two Icelandic politicians at Wikimedia Commons, but found nothing there was available. Then I searched the Icelandic Wikipedia and found the two photos we now discuss. Obviously I can now see (and agree) that you are 100% correct, that the Icelandic Wikipedia need to remove the photos if their license indeed (as claimed) has been limited only to be used by Wikipedia or limited to non-commercial use. Right now I need your help to contact and push the Icelandic Wikipedia to either delete their pictures or acquire a completely "free license" from the Icelandic Parliament. If we do not push the Icelandic Wikipedia for that, then nobody will be engaged to acquire the "free photos" that we obviously also need access to at the English Wikipedia. When you contact the Icelandic Wikipedia, I will suggest you also refer to the {{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}} template, as something that perhaps also could be a good idea for the Icelandic Wikipedia to start using (as part of a solution where they reach a special photo license deal with the Icelandic Parliament). I want to help Wikipedia by pushing for a true solution here (but think it is best that you establish the contact and explain the case for them). If you can re-use some of my formulations above in your post/mail to the Icelandic Wikipedia, then you have my full permission. Please give me feedback here at your talkpage about your actions in the case, and the response you get from the Icelandic Wikipedia. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been waiting for your reply to the Icelandic case during the past three days. It is important we find a solution for the Icelandic photos. Once again, I request that you contact the Icelandic Wikipedia to solve the matter. My main problem is, that if they over at the Icelandic Wikipedia continue to have uploaded photos striving against the policy of being used for upload at Wikipedia, then we will never ever get "free licensed" photo of the politicians uploaded with availability for the English Wikipedia (where the picture policy is actively patrolled). So I will really appreciate, if you help me to at least push for a solution here! Getting an Icelandic wikipedian engaged to solve the matter, either by deleting the "partly restricted" photos or having a true unlimited "free license" granted by the Icelandic parliament, is what we really need. Once again, I will suggest you copy this {{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}} as a solution proposal into your post/mail to the Icelandic Wikipedia. Please keep me informed of your actions. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Danish Expert Danish Expert (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I'm not really finding the time to address problems on other Wikipedias right now. From what I can quickly gather, I'm getting the impression that the Icelandic Wikipedia is a project with very limited activity, and its image policies are in general disarray, just like those of many of the other smaller projects. If I were to wade in there now with a demand to get those image usages fixed, I'd probably lose an awful lot of my time, would alienate more or less everybody in that small community, and the end result would be either a mass deletion of like 90% of their images, or no such mass deletion and continuation of the horribly policy-violating status quo, but either way, a huge amount of frustration, probably on all sides. At some point, I believe the Wikimedia Foundation will have to take some steps to address such issues in its smaller daughter projects, because this is really not an isolated case, but personally I just can't muster the time and strength for it.

As for {{Non-free Parliamentary copyright}}, I'm afraid it wouldn't really solve the issue either, because, according to our policies, it's still a "non-free" template, so we'd still not be entitled to invoke it on portraits of living people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Fortunately the Icelandic problem is not currently as big as one might fear. The category of the "wrong used license" (with license to "Icelandic Wikipedia" without the uploaders providing a fair use rationale) has been limited to these 91 pictures (of which 75 are photos of contemporary Icelandic MP politicians - being uploaded by the now inactive user named Kjerulf). I know and accept that the template I refered to (if created over at the Icelandic Wikipedia) would still only be a workable solution for deceased or retired MP politicians (but still think they should offer that solution as well for the "historic cases"). The 75 photos of the currently active Icelandic politicians of course need to be deleted. I think we can accomplish this without too much drama. But the longer we wait, we will get an increasing amount of pictures to delete from the category and much more drama entailed in the turmoil. I of course fully respect that you are out of time to take affair for the moment. But if you can help me just to find a link to an active Icelandic administrator talkpage, then I am willing to contact him and can refer him to the main findings we have made (here from our internal debate at your talkpage). Would that be okay? If you prefer to write him a short note - that will of course always be me highest wish (as you have a higher rank tha me) - but if you are out of time I will gladly write him a friendly formulated note about the problem. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, their equivalent of our WP:ADMIN is at is:Wikipedia:Möppudýr. (I like that word; it sounds like "mop-wielder", and they have a picture of a cute monkey on it, which means they are probably primates, like me. ;-) It's got a list of all their admins; if you try the first few you'll find several that have been reasonably active. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Three Questions for you

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I know--and respect--the fact that you probably lead a busy real life outside wikipedia and that as an Administrator here, you presumably get targetted by vandalism. On the matter at hand, I ask for a little common sense on some of these Voyager images. I am not perfect and I did not contest your removal of this image file which probably wasn't a good one for this Voyager article. But it seems as if you almost have an agenda to Delete all the Voyager images on their wikipedia articles even when you haven't seen the Voyager shows. My question is three-fold? How do you know that an image is inappropriate for the show if you haven't seen it? An image might convey a critical aspect of the show--which you might consider unimportant but other Trek fans who have seen the shows consider significant. Secondly, why is it that when you remove an image from an article that I uploaded, I don't get a notification on my talkpage? User Miyagawa did this to about 2 or 3 images and I got a notification on my talkpage. (I agreed with Miyagawa and asked that the images be deleted--after he gave his reasons why the images were not important to the article--but that's just courtesy.)

Finally, the Non-Free review was supposed to be a discussion of images to be singled out for deletion but as I said, you seem to want to delete ALL of the images mentioned for discussion here before the discussion is over? Is that how wikipedia works. How many good people could wikipedia lose if there has been no agreement? I gave some reasons why some images should be kept and I ask if you will 1. either offer your suggestion to keep any images or 2. agree to keep some images. If I was an Admin (and I am not) I might be open to allowing the use of a few images that were borderline important if I was deleting 25-30 others that are junk. But since you are not a Star Trek fan, how could a Trekkie on wikipedia know that you would treat them fairly here if they upload an image for a show which they have seen but which you haven't?

PS: On the 29th century timeship image, I decided to ask for an uploader's own delete after both your and and Masem's comments at NFC. The Voyager producers did not talk about the timeship's technical features. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, where to start?

• "How do you know that an image is inappropriate for the show if you haven't seen it?" – Easy: Not having seen the show actually puts me in a better position to judge this, because I'm exactly in the position of the reader we're writing for. Articles are meant to inform readers who haven't seen the show. As a reader, I can tell whether or not the image teaches me something that the text couldn't. Of course, I can only go by what is in the text, but that's as it should be. If there were something terribly important that the image might convey, but the text fails to make that point, then of course we should not have the image, until the article has been improved.
• About notifications: Everybody was notified that the images were under review, and you in particular were of course fully aware that deletion was being discussed. More notification is not necessary.
• I went ahead beginning to delete things when I saw that in over a week no other editor had stood up for any particular image and made a case for its retention. I began deleting what I considered the obvious ones, just as David Fuchs had also done with a few earlier. Others I merely removed from articles and tagged as orphaned. Of course I'm going to hold off on deleting those you've picked out, even though I think most of those will eventually have to go too.
• Do I agree that some of this whole bunch should eventually be kept? I don't know. I haven't looked at all of them yet. But from those I have seen, none has struck me as particularly keep-worthy. Most of this is simply due to the fact that the articles themselves are of such miserably poor quality. With a high-profile science fiction series like this, there are normally relatively frequent situations where one might legitimately end up wanting to use an image – but those situations will only arise if the article has substantial encyclopedic content to begin with. The keep rate in this bunch is so low because the encyclopedic value of most of the articles is precisely zero (i.e. no real content beyond the plot renarration).
• Do I have "an agenda"? Well, I have the agenda that image use in this whole topic area (not just Star Trek but TV series in general) needs to be cleaned up. It's a mass problem, with probably thousands of bad images in thousands of articles, and we need to find procedures of speeding up the cleanup work. These images were uploaded unthinkingly, in huge numbers and without any individual discussion over many years, so we can't really afford getting bogged down discussing every single case now when we're cleaning them up.
• Please stop casting aspersions on my perceived "fairness" or my qualifications in dealing with these topics because I am "not a fan". This stance of yours is really quite offensive and annoying, and not conducive to further reasoned discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I see your point and its fair comment. Its just that as a fan of one show, I felt that you targeted Star Trek because of its larger profile but ignored many other TV shows with their own non-free images like Dr. Who, etc. I wondered how many other TV shows must have their own copyrighted images on wiki until you disclosed that link--and it is many, I admit. I was also a bit peeved that after I tried to expand the plot for Future's End here (there was an existing tag asking for a large plot expansion since this was a 2 part Voyager episode but the plot for its wikipedia article was ridiculously short) including a suggestion about 'Sarah Silverman' by George Ho, the image for the article faced deletion. I gave references to star trek.com to this article which was run by CBS. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Krste Misirkov

Hi. Can you help us here? I am three times reverted. I attempt to solve the issue with Stan, but he does not want to argue. He reverts sources, gives quotes out of context and bring back his POV. Here you can see what he deletes (neutral text, it's not mine). Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The R&I sock

Found this on the talk page: "On the subject of evasion, the editor operating out of 101.0.71.0/24 appears to be using PureVPN to hide their IP address. Note that PureVPN's Australian hostname resolves to 101.0.71.2. --92.4.162.209 (talk)23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)" I've been talking to that dynamic IP on my talk page and they've been active on at least the article's talk page and BlackHades page - but this makes me think they are another sock. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, something is fishy about that IP guy. Such a small range (just a */24), such frequent changes of IP within that range, but getting reassigned the same IP repeatedly over several days; no other contributions from that range ever – that's not the signs of a normal dynamic ISP. If he bothers to turn up again, let's take a good sharp look at him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He questioned whether you were too involved while also telling BH the SPI was a bad idea and that I wasn't a meatpuppet. But that doesn't convince me that we aren't dealing with a sock. I wish I could AGF but I'm all out of assume. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

He's turned up here[25] and here[26] since the range block. A year ago as his excuse for not registering an account he said he couldn't think of a username. Now he's using several different excuses (in the second diff, he says he's using someone else's computer). Take your pick. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a report on the Brazilian proxy used by the IP hopper at WP:OP. Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor violating interaction ban
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Future, if your intent with the range blocks was to allow for account creation by the IP editor as you stated then blocking account creation on the IP range is not a good way of allowing for it. Since your range block was not based on a finding of actual abusive sock-puppetry (i.e. ban evasion or gaming consensus), an IP block of that type seems to be completely inappropriate, especially when it is inconsistent with the reason you gave to the IP editor.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

AN notification

I have brought up the issue with the IP range at AN.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mensural notation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Score (music) (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) 10:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the accusation above that The Devil's Advocate violation his interaction action ban by posting here. NE Ent 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The posting of The Devil's Advocate was problematic in several ways. Future Perfect at Sunrise has now had a significant period of time to read it. He has presumably also seen The Devil's Advocate's further protests at WP:AN. He is free to do whatever he likes with that posting. NE Ent elsewhere has called the hatting summary "inflammatory"; here he calls it an "accusation".

NE Ent has consistently shown a lack of WP:CLUE w.r.t. sockpuppetry issues connected with WP:ARBR&I. He prematurely closed an ANI thread related to Echigo mole socking. It concerned a blatant troll sock, trying to stir up trouble. NE Ent, inventing his own version of wikipedia policy, created a fake SPI assessment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive. However, prior to Future Perfect at Sunrise's block, the user page had already been tagged as a suspected sock (per "obvious sock is obvious"), a tagging reverted by the IP hopper; a quite complex enquiry had already been put in place at WP:OP about the nature of the ipsock, which has been confirmed by experts to be some kind of abusive proxy with an unindentified entry IP; and long before that the ipsock had been reported by another user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. That initial report by ArtifexMayhem was a mistaken identification. Nevertheless, because the Mikemikev page is on my watchlist, that's how I found out about this latest Echigo mole sock. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh people. I would really have hoped I could just ignore this stuff and wait for it to go away. I wouldn't normally have rejected TDA's approach to me in such a matter, but then, Mathsci's objection is not entirely unreasonable either (it was after all in a thread in which M. had previously been talking with me, and on matter that directly involved M. much more than it did T.) But whatever, TDA has now brought it up at AN anyway, it's not getting much traction there either, and I have been hoping to find some time off this stuff to do something nice and peaceful for a change, so anybody who continues to fight about socks and blocks on my talkpage will be made to help me copyedit mensural notation as a punishment (and listen to at least one mass by Ockeghem while doing it, to make the punishment worse.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Mikemikev again

Please could you block this ipsock 121.131.49.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) of Mikemikev who is editing disruptively on WP:AN? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/EW

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at WP:AN/EW: [27] It appears that there have been no admins watching that page for quite some time. I mentioned it at WP:ANI as well. I don't think it is Ok in an AA arbitration area to use an IP to rv the article to a 4 months old version without any discussion or consensus. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster 09:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, it has been resolved. Thanks. Grandmaster 00:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

re File:Certs breathmint 2005 package.jpg

Could you send me a copy of this file? Or temporarily restore it to my userspace or something. Lost the original long ago, and want it to find out if its acceptable to Commons (don't know, but based on say this it might be -- can't hurt to ask. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers for removing Nang's latest junk from my talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your quote

I put a quote from you on my userpage. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblock?

Hi FPaS. Rambo.XIV has posted (what I regard as) a fairly reasonable unblock appeal; I'm inclined to accept it (on the proviso that there's an indef waiting in the wings if he does it again). Would that be cool with you, or would you rather I left it for the full month? Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's okay with me, if you feel he's sincere. I went for a pretty long sudden block because it struck me as a particularly nasty, deliberate form of copyright cheating (he first uploaded one copyvio, then apparently noticed that it had exif data giving away its true provenance, then filed an uploader's speedy request for it claiming it was an "error", and then immediately uploaded another copyvio, again from a commercial agency source, but with the exif data removed.) No objections against an unblock, but it may be necessary to keep an eye on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sneaky; I hadn't spotted that. So that's what you meant by "systematic deliberate attempt of deception"; I did wonder... Well, AGF and all that; I'll let him loose again with, I think, a temporary ban on image uploads and the promise of an indef to the face if he violates copyright again. Hopefully the lesson has been learned. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dorset PCSO

In regards to the PCSo picture I have made some changes and the owner has since linked in from his Flickr page see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alwyn_ladell/8236691442/

If more needs to be done your help will be appreciated. --T9062856 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, this is still not quite enough. Per our policies, we can use an image only if we have a fully free license for it, i.e. one that allows anybody else to freely re-use it elsewhere. So far, the owner seems to have given only a license for Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A little frustrated

Hi, if I remember correctly, you deal with Armenia-Azerbaijan stuff (for your sins). I'm getting a little frustrated at some rather blatant tendentious editing I've found. The nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Congress of Eastern Armenians seems obvious bad faith to me but it was immediately greeted with lots of "delete" votes by Azerbaijani and Turkish nationalist editors who are clearly tag-teaming. I do the detective work, find out this did indeed exist according to academic sources and is simply an alternative name for Armenian National Congress (1917). Therefore the page should be a redirect. Neutral editors agree with me. Yet the AfD simply gets relisted as no consensus.

The nominator Konullu (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock puppet master with a blatant anti-Armenian agenda who often edits logged-out to avoid ARBAA2 sanctions (he's been warned here [28]) and vote-stack using socks. I've put him up for an WP:SPI investigation here [29]. Seems like beyond WP:DUCK to me. But SPI is a ghost town nowadays and nothing has come of it yet.

Maybe I don't have the patience for Wikipedia any more, but this blatant tendentiousness and tag-teaming annoys me.

Anyhow, I'll understand if you don't want to deal with this, and if that's the case maybe I'll try Sandstein instead. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers.--Folantin (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

More bad faith harassment by this POV-pusher [30]. I've been waiting since 13 February for an SPI investigation to even start [31]. He's received another ARBAA2 warning from Sandstein here [32]. His agenda is quite blatant. Also, he's just canvassed a blocked user (under ARBAA2) to help him meat puppet [33]. --Folantin (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers again. Basically, WP:DUCK soup. --Folantin (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

101.0.71.0/24 and User:PsychKitten

The newly created account PsychKitten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be operated by the user previously editing through the IP range 101.0.71.0/24. He edited logged off[34] on the open proxy from China 202.105.113.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) as confirmed by the SPI clerk Spitfire on my talk page.[35] I initially thought this was Mikemikev, but the pattern of editing seems to be that of the IP hopper. I have reported the open proxy at WP:OP and left a note at WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned image talk page

You seem to have forgotten to delete this image talk page of File talk:Sagar karnataka.jpg. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just checking, but I assume these files were here after they were on Flickr? (I mean, I know copying from Commons to Flickr is rare, but it has happened.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, checked the dates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maniots, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tsakonian and Dorian (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) 11:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard

Are you the editor that created Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard? If so Kudos. It is much nicer than before. While I usually use the Commons upload Wizard, I've been uploading logos recently, so I've been using the Wikipedia version.

I did run into one snag today. I tried uploading a file, filled out a complete non-free rationale, and clicked upload. No error message but no upload. Tried several times before I finally figured out the problem. The company sent me an image with extension .png, but it was really a .jpg. The upload Wizard won't upload it, which is fine, but it didn't tell me that there was a problem, so it was only by accident that I figured it out (I tried deleting the file form my local drive, and it popped up a warning.)

I hope it would be easy to add a warning. If you aren't the creator, do you know who is?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. Yep, it was me who wrote that thing. About the error handling, I'm afraid there may be a more deep-seated problem. A couple of months ago, something in one of the innumerable MediaWiki updates changed something in the way the server handles API requests (see Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard/Archive 3#No confirmation of upload completed), and that broke the whole error reporting routine that was originally there and had been working fairly well up to that moment. I tried to figure out a way of working around it, but I found myself technically out of my depth – I thought the technique I had been using was pretty much standard for these kinds of situations (file upload through javascript, which is always something you have to use some tricks for to get past certain Browser security issues), and when that method broke I couldn't find any feasible alternative. Maybe someone with more programming experience could though. We've been without any effective error handling ever since; it's basically just push the upload button and sit there hoping to see a change in your contribution log after a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand. As an aside, I got lucky. I looked at the history, glanced at the bottom, saw your name, and contacted you. Then I realized I wasn't at the beginning of history, just at the last entry of the first page. Luckily, when I checked the whole history, well, you know.

On a different but related issue, I'm working at OTRS, which is close to broken. I have a draft of a proposal Permissions process improvement which I haven't shared with anyone yet (other than you). I don't know whether it will get support, but the technical details of building something modeled on the Wizard are out of my league. I hope you will be willing to help, either directly, or teach me what to do.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian language sources

Hello there! I have added several more authors now and I just got Katicic views from a friend. I used to have some photocopies from Brixhe and Panayotou's work, but they are long gone and lost after I moved. I was wondering if you have any way to get a snapshot of their contribution somehow? It is still the most quoted work until now and it would be priceless for the article.

I believe we're getting closer having a complete set of sources to make an undisputable and balanced article.

Also, I am wondering if you're involved into any other Ancient languages articles on wikipedia?

Kind Regards

Fkitselis (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Feature pictures candidate

What happens if somebody tries to sabotage the voting for a featured picture candidate by altering the text of another voter? How easily is this detected and fixed? What is the penalty?Kurzon (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Being Human (UK series 1), Being Human (UK series 2), Being Human (UK series 3), and Being Human (UK series 4) page deletions

Hello,

The following four pages have been deleted by you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Human_%28UK_series_1%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Human_%28UK_series_2%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Human_%28UK_series_3%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Human_%28UK_series_4%29

but I feel that that shouldn't have been the case.

In the log, you said they were recently-created articles that duplicated an existing topic. However, they had been there for a long time and had extremely useful information, such as main and recurring casts, that is nowhere else.

Please can they be restored?

Best wishes,

Cybersub (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all of these pages were in fact recently created (late January, a few days before I deleted them), and they contained no information that wasn't either copied more or less verbatim (from either the parent Being Human (TV series), or the List of Being Human episodes), or, in the case of the lengthy plot summeries, apparent copyright violations from external TV sites. The cast information that you mention is covered both in Being Human (TV series)#Characters and in the (itself absurdly overblown) List of Being Human characters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Surena

What? excuse me? you keep deleting what i write, and i have even added sources, and have just added one more extra source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Surena warning

The sources actually says that it is the statue of Surena, and no no.. i am reporting you, it's you that should be expected to be blocked soon because you delete sources that shows the truth.

Where? The source I was talking about [36] actually doesn't (if I'm missing something, please point out exactly where it says so), and as for the others, I have told you why they don't count as reliable. Have you read my posting on the article talk page, at last? It seems you keep ignoring it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It actually does, you should look at it, i have added more sources, now there are five sources, now you can't say that it doesn't confirm anything :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It. Does. Not. Show me where it says the statue is him. It doesn't. The other references you added are just as useless as the first ones.

Why have you still not participated on the article talk page?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions clean up

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Phantiswiki

Template:Phantiswiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Another problematic Silesian nationalist editor

Hello. I'm writing to you because you seem to know how to handle people like this. I've been running up against User:Franek K., who is a single-purpose account that has been inserting his Silesian nationalist POV all over various articles touching on the Slavic languages. Most recently this is leading to an edit war of sorts in Slavic languages, where he is going against a consensus of 3 or 4 editors, including a number (me, Volunteer Marek, Joris V) who have been active on a large number of linguistics-related pages. His m.o. is tendentious editing, abuse of the concepts of neutrality/verifiability/original research and consistent personal attacks against people disagreeing with him. It's getting very old but I have no idea how to handle this because I usually work on areas that engender less controversy. Benwing (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I not have a Silesian nationalist point of view, I'm Pole and my native language is Polish. I have a neutral point of view, dialect or language, not only language. Please note that opinions about Silesian between people are different, also between linguists (although I admit that the more linguists considered Silesian as a dialect - I do not hide this, however, not all linguists). Also important is the opinion of people using the language, the organizations of a given language, opinions by sociolinguist, opinions by linguist organizations, politicians etc. At this stage, you can not decide that Silesian is a dialect or Silesian is a language; in the current situation neutral version is Silesian is a language or a dialect. Wikipedia is neutral, if there are different opinions, should be show all. User Benwing pushing only one POV-version - a dialect of Polish, data about Lach dialect of Silesian (according to few sources, dialect of the Czech language), opinions by linguistic organizations, political issue for Silesian begins stir, so, Benwing remove the data about Lach, opinions by linguistic organizations, political issue for Silesian + sources, all data that may disqualify his opinion of Silesian as a dialect of Polish. Cleverly manipulated.

I made a new (neutral and compromise) version [37], I left paragraph by Benwing about Silesians and source - Kamusella (though I prefer to remove this), I remove info about ISO because it duplicates the data - there are whole section of Detailed list with ISO 639 codes for this data, added opinion by linguistic organisations and political issue + sources. Family tree of languages, according to linguistic organisations: West Slavic -> Lechitic -> Silesian. Most likely to be created page of RFC for Silesian problem. Franek K. (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Image use question

Hi Future Perfect, I hope all's been well. I have a question about image use for you, a topic I know you deal with every once in a while because I see people complaining about your deletions here. I have a cache of scanned and downloaded images of papyri on my computer, and I've only ever uploaded images that I've scanned from publications before 1923. But then I see files like this, with the public domain rationale being that the scribe died more than 70 years ago. Does that hold water? I ask because there is an image that I would like to use that originated from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri website (as did the file I just linked), but there is a copyright notice there which reads:

Unless otherwise stated, all digital images of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri are © the Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford. The papyri themselves are owned by the Egypt Exploration Society, London. Images of them may be used for teaching and research purposes, but should not be published without the prior consent of the Imaging Papyri Project and the Egypt Exploration Society. Other digital images are © the Imaging Papyri Project, University of Oxford. If you are aware of any inadvertent misattribution or copyright infringement on our part, please tell us without delay.

I'd love your thoughts on this, because I can't tell if the rationale for that one papyrus is just completely disingenuous, or if the Oxyrhynchus Papyri copyright claim is just a claim without grounds.  davidiad { t } 18:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult, and probably a matter of different legal situations in different jurisdictions. On Wikipedia, people usually rely on a court case in the US, which established that a mere reproduction of an ancient work is itself not a creative work and as such not copyrightable (even if making the reproduction may be fraught with considerable difficulties, effort and costs, as is certainly the case here.) This would probably also apply here, unless one were to argue that arranging the fragments in this particular manner is a creative act of sorts. In other countries this may be different, however, and especially in the UK museums appear to routinely claim copyright on photographs of their holdings. The Wikimedia foundation at one point made it an official position to encourage its users to rely on the US law alone. But one UK museum actually once sued a Wikipedian for uploading their stuff, so if you are an identifiable individual or if you are in a situation where you don't want to risk conflict with the UK institutions, you might want to think a bit before you make that upload. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights FP. It's best I don't try it. They wouldn't sue me, but would immediately know who I am, make me have it deleted and be pissy at me for a while. My older plate scans will have to do for the article I'm working on, but, damn, this is a pretty papyrus. Thanks again.  davidiad { t } 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mensural notation

What you have done here is great, thanks so much.--Smerus (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I was thinking it could be taken to FA some time in the future. But I also intended to add a bit more about proportions and tactus first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Being Human

I see that you deleted some Being Human UK TV series season pages last month. Trouble is, they're linked to from Template:Being Human. You should've put a Wikify tag on them, not deleted them. Digifiend (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Except these were deleted because they were copyright violations. Copyright violations can't be tolerated on Wikipedia for any length of time. It's not an option to just say "let's fix this later" like it would be if it were just formatting problems. And if deleting them results in a few more redlinks from templates, that's all the more motivation for someone to write a copyright-compliant version. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Greece

I was going over the Greece article, and I realized something was missing. Κάτι έλοιπε, αλλά δεν μπορούσα να καταλάβω τι. Then I realized: The Ottoman period section of the Greece article was missing! Turns out an IP removed it in December [38]. Then it removed the Hellenistic/Roman section [39].You reverted it back, but ONLY the removal of the Hellenistic/Roman section [40], seems like you missed the blanking of the Ottoman section. Just letting you know. Athenean (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma

He's back, this time as Herr Bundespanzer (talk · contribs). All the telltale signs: Aggressive POV-pushing, hostile attitude, maniacal edit-warring, lots of incremental edits to Turkey after first editing a non-semied article to get over the 10 edit threshold, fluent English. As the admin most familiar with him, if you could help that would be tremendously appreciated. Athenean (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

fyi

I have made mention of one of your prior actions in an AN/I discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Block notice

Assume this wasn't you, but just in case it was, the edit was performed while logged out - which you might not want to be visible. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I took care of it. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. Seems to have been some impersonation troll going round leaving block notices in the names of various other admins. I'm pretty sure I wasn't editing on that day, so it can't have been me :-)

I've un-hidden the edits; no need to have them suppressed now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Samsujata

So, I proposed that if they wanted to be unblocked they commit to not uploading anything at all for at least six months, and they have now agreed to those terms. So, checking in with you as blocking admin before proceeding. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Scythian77

Could you have a look at the recent edits of User:Scythian77? They don't all fall in my area of expertise, but they seem to be include (some kind of) nationalistic bias. Cheers, —Ruud 11:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Note:

I'm not a clerk, so this post carries no weight what-so-ever; still I thought you should know per a NYB request that you have been mentioned. My guess is that he is referring to this statement at the AC case request, but I can not be positive of any person's thinking other than my own. Just letting you know though. — Ched :  ?  00:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

AE

Hi, there is a request at WP:AE about an editor you sanctioned and who is alleged to have violated the sanction. Your input would be useful, I think.  Sandstein  04:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article requiring protection

Hi Future Perfect Sunrise, I was wondering if you could assist in Hellenic Police article. There is this user who, under different IP's (not auto-confirmed user), constantly changes (adding non-sense) the article. I don't think he will stop. Can you protect the page please? Thanks. Nochoje (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner issue

Hello. I feel bad that I have immediately been labelled "tendentious" per the statement I made at AN/I following yours. Either way, all that was being typed out while the other noticeboard thread was being created. I know that the material I posted is not the kind of thing sought on that page but there is more to editing than simply assuming "my source is better than his" hence the reason we have agreement, resolution and consensus. To that end, I outlined the entire exchange which tomorrow celebrates one year since making its first appearance. See not only how I am one of three editors to approve a revision contested by one person only inside a year, but that no valid argument has ever been given for an absolute blanking. Redacting/copyediting maybe but blanking, certainly not. Please see the list before concluding who is tendentious and whether Boomerang is necessary[41]. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#The intro sentence

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#The intro sentence.  —Sowlos  13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please do try commenting on content, rather than the contributors. Your opinions recently posted at Talk:Byzantine Empire are not without merit, but — as a long standing administrator — you should be well aware of the unproductive results that can stem from name calling and the like.  —Sowlos  19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about Copernicus socks at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copernicus mass sockpuppetry if you haven't already. I noticed you had blocked Mieszko 8 and given a topic ban to Astronomer28, both of whom are mentioned in that thread. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban Appeal and Arbitration

I have filed an appeal and requested arbitration of my topic ban at WP:AE. Astronomer28 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle warnings

Hi Future Perfect. I suspect most users will not use uw-icsX, however I know you are a bit of a file-fan, so I can understand how you might need it. You can now add custom warnings to Twinkle via WP:TWPREFS (they will appear in the "custom warnings" category of the "warn" dialog if you do so).

Hopefully you find that makes up for the loss of the tags from the default set. If you think there is reason enough to add the ics set back into to the default Twinkle set, you could suggest it at WT:TW. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to You

Hi,

I found that you had messaged me i.e "Replaceable fair use File:Usage Share of OS in 2013.png".

The thing is that i am quite new to Wikipedia (i joined only 3-4 months before), and i cannot understand what you want to say.

Only i understood that File:Usage Share of OS in 2013.png needs some corrections.

Yes, you are 100% permitted by me to edit that file.

Please make corrections if you find something wrong.

Lastly, please can you tell me what you have written in my talk page.

Reply me

Thanks Himanis Das (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic comments

I reverted your hatting of my comments at AE, and I want to make sure you understand why. At the same time that you hatted my comment, you also hatted this comment by Mathsci, and soon after he reverted your edit. You let his revert stand. However, when I did exactly the same thing he had done, you undid my revert. If you want to call yourself an uninvolved admin, you need to at least avoid obvious instances of treating editors differently in identical situations. Akuri (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice Mathsci reverted me, but I now see he reinstated the hatting, though in a slightly different form, a short time after. Surely, you noticed that too, did you not? And now to the substance: Hijacking noticeboard threads for in-fighting and pursuing grudges between commentators, in ways that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the actual topic of the thread, is seriously disruptive. I saw you doing that on AN (or was it ANI) the other day and hatted you off there; now I'm seeing you do it here. Don't do it again. Please take this as another official warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci's condensing of his own comments didn't seems the same to me as what you'd done to them. After he condensed them they weren't labeled as "off-topic", which might as well be a neon sign that says to admins "don't read this". But you'll accept the way he collapsed his comments with his own summary, I've also done that with my own comments.

On the topic of the ANI thread, I hope you noticed that Mathsci initiated the off-topic discussion by making accusations against me and The Devil's Advocate that had nothing to do with the rest of the thread. TDA and I were not paying attention to Mathsci there before he brought us up, and I responded to him because of the off-topic accusation he made against us. Whenever Mathsci follows The Devil's Advocate to new discussions to attack him, I feel I should defend TDA because his one-way interaction ban prohibits him from defending himself. Did you warn Mathsci about that? If you warned me and not him for the same behaviour, that also suggests you're showing favouritism. Akuri (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#Macedonian renaissance

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#Macedonian renaissance. Normally I'd be glad to see the discussion move off the terminology debate of the lead's first paragraph and on to other things, but I feel an editor is attempting to push his own point of view on to the article before others have even had a chance to see his arguments, let alone comment on them.  —Sowlos  23:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're input will still be appreciated, but the situation seems to have de-escalated.  —Sowlos  00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Rhabdophobe

Hi. This is an obvious Echigo mole sock. I have made an SPI report, but please could you block the account and revert their second edit. It's obvious what they're up to. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Name variants in infobox at Byzantine Empire

I'm trying to stay off the talk page there, right now. I don't want to cause more conflict if I can avoid it and I've already contributed to more than enough in #Macedonian renaissance.

You brought up the confusing effect all those names can have for readers, not being able to tell if they're different names, different languages, or some combination thereof. I'd like to suggest you consider using linked footnotes (like what's done at Roman Empire) for the transliterations. That would clear one line out at the very least.  —Sowlos  19:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you.

There is a discussion regarding you at ANI. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• How does it feel to be a "rouge" admin who goes around "bloking" talk pages? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, that brings back the good ol' days. There was a time when being rouge was a lot more fashionable than it seems to be now. Many of the younger contributors no longer know the splendours of rouge-ness. Back in the day, admins needed rouge-o-meters. But I don't think bloking talkpages was considered to be part of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think all rouge admins should be dyesopped. There's no place here for people who vnldize, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For taking admin abuse to a new level, you have been bloked forever. And I'm totally never going to unbloke (unblok?) you, in large part because I don't actually know what bloking is, so I can't very well undo it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.jpg

please reconsider deletion. there is no evidence of this photo at the reuters website; rather, more likely a wash post photo. since there is no reuters photo for sale, there is no commercial impact. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 23:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Like others in the FFD discussion, I cannot find this image on the Washington Post page you said it was on, so I have only got the other website to go by, where it is unambiguously credited to Reuters. In the absence of any information to the contrary, I have to reason to doubt that attribution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

i find the inability to follow clear links [42]; [43] troubling. (is it i didn't see that?) more likely a stringer for the post merely distributed by reuters, hence not for sale there. plus it is not written in policy, that a small size thumbnail impacts commercial wire services. maybe if you believe that, you should write is that way, before i present you with a few more hundred to do. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 00:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am still not seeing that image on that page. Where is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.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. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#"Continuation"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire#"Continuation".
DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) has proposed a modification to intro sentence for Byzantine Empire (from: "The Byzantine Empire was the predominantly Greek-speaking continuation of the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages." → "The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages"). As you participated in the revising the lead, you may be interested to weigh in.  —Sowlos  22:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mehmed II

You an administrator and you make summary comments like that?! That after all "these years I still not know what a harem is"! What is that meant to mean? How dare you. I find your intervention deeply insulting. "Historically ignorant"! I have a degree in history. "Source misuse" - in what way? If you want to debate the edits on the issues then fine, but don't dare make it personal. But I advise you not to abuse your office of administrator. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you genuinely want to see an even-balanced resolution to the Mehmed II article, then perhaps you will set out your reasoning as to why the sources used are weak. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole again

There's a long list of identified socks on the SPI page. One trolled[44] on an R&I-related SPI page for the arbcom blocked account Mors Martell. That was the account Small tremor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), already confirmed by DeltaQuad, although obvious per WP:DUCK. He has subsequently been removing the sockpuppet tags from his user page. Please could you block the account? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You saved me a lot of effort

I had a hunch before but you found the real master. I was preparing to write a few reports but your decisive and barnstar-worthy intervention made all that redundant. Danke schön. Cheers. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File Removed

Thank you for helping me on copyright issue. I will make sure that nothing happen in future like this. If some copyright issue occur, its unintentional and happened by mistake. (Dr Adil (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Smatprt (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Due of our past history, and your habit of not wishing to discuss matters before you act, I felt it necessary to take our issues to the ANI, as you obviously see from above. I just wanted to add that this is not personal in any way. We've never really engaged outside of the SAQ. I just think you have been singling out just one side of the room for bans and other discretionary sanctions, while turning a blind eye to the bullies. As such, I just don't believe you are acting fair. Smatprt (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on advice at ANI, I have withdrawn my report and am approaching you here:

I believe you are acting unduly harsh and unfair, and not within the NPOV guidelines. I am here in an attempt to resolve these issues so I hope you will discuss the situation. You hve ignored me in the past, so I hope you will at least give me the benefit of the doubt this one time and hear me out. Sorry if I'm blunt. I mean no disrespect, but I just want to get to the point.

Basically, I don't think you acting within the guidelines and policies set by the ArbCom committee.[45],[46]

It seems as if you applied overly harsh discretionary sanctions toward myself and "certain editors" (links below), while ignoring the behavior of other editors who are supposed to be under the same sanctions (ex- a barrage ending with "Now if you can be still long enough we might get some more opinions, but with you crapping up the boards with your hysterics I doubt it."[47] and statements like "Are you going to shut up and let some outside editors comment on this or are you going to drone on ad nauseum as you usually do during these discussions? "[48], and numerous references to animal dung...[49].

You have also made repeated discretionary sanctions without issuing the required warning.[50],[51], only commenting after the fact, with no opportunity given to provide diffs or discuss any perceived or real behavioral problems.

I also question your insisting that you are an "uninvolved editor" (when acting as an administrator over pages related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.) You have participated several times on the Authorship talk pages, most recently saying "If that's the case, the claim is so extravagant and far-fetched we'd really need a clearer reference for it." - sounding just like one of the partisan involved editors on the page.[52] At the same time, you haven't warned or sanctioned any of the 3 primary editors, in spite of their clear flaunting of several principals cited by ArbCom, including Casting aspersions & Conduct and decorum.[53](see smallsampling of links above)

Given that you didn't follow procedure by providing any warnings, will you please redact those recent bans? According to ArbCom, "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning''... and..."Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;"). I'm asking that you please do the right thing here and self-redact, and in the future, provide a warning and an opportunity for me to discuss the situation with you.

FYI - a defining moment came with this interchange, initiated by user:ErrantX, who chastised most everyone,[54] and answered by user:Tom_Reedy, who responded with a defiance and 'up yours' attitude that has defined this debate.[55]. By your own admission, you observed this behavior,[56] yet said nothing to prevent such conduct. Why are you singling out me and, in a sense, condoning the behavior of these others? Respectfully, Smatprt (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a generally accepted practice that renewed warnings are not necessary in cases of repeated sanctions for the same type of behaviour. If you've been sanctioned before, you are supposed to be aware of what kinds of behaviour to avoid. You clearly knew that your actions were again being viewed – at least by your opponents – as disruptive. I appreciate that you yourself obviously do not feel they were, just as you evidently did not think so when you were sanctioned last year, nor the year before that. Still, those prior sanctions were imposed and upheld. The question is not whether you knew you were being disruptive; the question is whether you had a reason to think your behaviour now was substantially different from your behaviour back then, prior to to the previous bans. To me, it seems fairly obvious that it was not. Can you honestly claim it was? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• yes I can, absolutely. I have not engaged in personal attacks (unlike my opponents), I have not engaged in mass deletions (unlike my opponents), I have limited my reverts (unlike my opponents), and I have followed talk page discussions with other forms of dispute resolution (at the urging of my opponents, who then called such action "frivolous"). These negative behavior patterns were all part of my editing habits prior to the original ban. I have admitted as much. My main issue then, as now, was the one-sided approach to enforcement. The ArbCom case only gave one side of the room a wrist slap, but it also warned them (I thought) of future rules of decorum. I stopped that previous behavior. My "opponents" as you call them, have not.Smatprt (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• You must recognize that not one uninvolved editor has specifically complained about my behavior. On the contrary, at the NPOV notice board, I was recognized for providing useful information. Of course my "opponents" complain, but they are also the most "involved" and are the ones lodging the complaints. But no one else has. On the contrary, my notice board action, which my opponents called "frivolous", was modestly successful. Of course it took some 12,000 words for them to finally agree to delete one word... one word! But they finally admitted their mistake (and have since shut down the Noticeboard discussion and have ignored the advice of the editors there).
• I hope I have answered your question. Now will you answer mine? Specifically - why you are not enforcing the rules regarding "Casting aspersions" & "Conduct and decorum"? Why are you only going after one set of opponents and not the other? Smatprt (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding "generally accepted practice" - I can only say that this is an ArbCom case, not general editing. There are strict rules that apply to enforcement, and they have not been followed. This is true especially regarding discretionary sanctions, which are also not the same as normal sanctions. Thus my request that you redact your latest action towards me, which was not properly executed. As such, I don't believe your action was valid. I'm merely asking you to follow the rules of enforcement. I am striving to follow the ArbCom rules, which are there to protect both sides from abuse. I'm just asking you to do the same. Smatprt (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt, the admins who are usually active at WP:AE are unlikely to find your claim of lack of notice persuasive. You still have the option of making an Arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:AE. You can use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. This would require a consensus of uninvolved editors to decide on whether your ARBSAQ ban should be lifted. My own observations of your recent edits suggest that the objections to your conduct that were made in the past are still valid. You have been continuing a pattern that looks more like POV-pushing than helpful editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Smatprt, as is typical for you, you either failed to comprehend the policies you linked to, or you are trying to misrepresent them to your advantage.

The first guideline you linked to concerns blocks, not bans. IOW, if you violate the topic ban, you will be subject to being blocked. The second guideline you referred to states "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Nothing is specified about who should execute that warning, and in fact you were given the required warning by me, exactly nine days before you were again topic-banned.

Hope this helps. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Read it all, Tom: "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning". You are both "involved" and not "an administrator". Smatprt (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are quoting from the summary at the top. Nothing in the body of the text prohibits editors from issuing warnings or requires that the sanctioning administrator do so, and in fact "A warning need not be issued by an administrator; see the template's documentation for further details." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

IDP camps in northern Uganda and child soldiers

Ngunalik (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Hi, could you please let me know why you deleted the files and then added the word unambiguous copyright violation? As far as I am aware, there are no issues with the use of these images. I have several of these. And is there a way these can be restored back. The article needs to have the linkages to the images, it has been requested.Ngunalik (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You gave incorrect copyright information for those images. You claimed about each of them that it was in the public domain because it was a work of the US government. That was obviously not true. Before we can check what their true status is, we first need to know who really took them and how they were originally published. Without any clear indication as to why they might be free of copyrights, we have to assume that they are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ngunalik (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Hi, I have no doubt at all that these images can be used on Wiki but each time I tried to upload, the button disappears except for the button which says US federal government... I put all the sources for urls plus David Kilgour which advertised as a person working in the US government. As said I have images of these sort which I have already used for years. What should I do?Ngunalik (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Yehuda Amichai.jpg

please reconsider. image complies with fair use policy. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 13:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. It's the work of a professional commercial photographer, distributed via a commercial image agency, and there is evidence online that the author is protective of his copyright and has made other websites take unauthorized copies of it down. Clear NFCC#2 failure. Don't continue uploading images without checking for such factors (it took me about five minutes to find that out). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Yehuda Amichai.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Yehuda Amichai.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. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection of Copernicus

The template at talk (Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus) suggests new editors cannot edit it till May 1. Article's history shows this is wrong, any protection expired few days ago. Can you remove the template or reinstate some protection to bring those two together? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

You tricked me there, Piotrus! ;-) The article talkpage is, and was, protected till May 1. It was the main Nicolaus Copernicus page that had lost its protection. (I've reprotected it.) Bishonen | talk 10:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

2 lies? and a threat

Did you wrote two lies in one sentence? And a threat ofcourse.

This area didn't seem quiet peacefull why I was away.

Your main purpose doesn't seem that it is to keep it quiet. It's propably to keep it near your opinion as you did in Baba mountain], where ecxept of the turn back, you also erased from the encyclopedia, the Greek name of the mountain, like it is only in one country, not considering that it is a mount between two countries. And you didn't see also my question about two articles with same subject Talk:Baba Mountain Varnous. You didn't care about that? What is your concern actually?

And you threat me because I was banned before(!!!??!). Is this has something to add in the conversation? Is it helpful to improove encyclopedia? No. It is just a threat like, "let this area to me and don't even dare to get close". Is this co-operation you suggest?

About "Republic of Macedonia" disambiguation, I explained well, I think. What don't you understand? The only thing remains is to put a reliable source. I am trying to find one in English. Until then, I agree with your turn back. It is just a Macedonian rebel of the Republican party of Greece in 1916 and was called like this by journalists of that era. This is just a fact. I just wanted to add it because it gives the reader a better opportunity when he is seeking something. User:Pyraechmes Chrusts 19:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you in fact did not explain anything at all about the "Republic of Macedonia" disambiguation. I can find no evidence at all that the provisional "Ethniki Amyna" government was ever called "Republic of Macedonia". And why would it be? In English? And even if it was, that must be an extremely rare and marginal usage today (the fact that no other Greek editor, during all these years of struggling over our article titles, came up with the idea of citing it as an argument must mean something!), so it could still very easily be treated together with the other concepts at the single, central Macedonia dab page; no need to over-load the "Republic" article with yet another hat note. – As for the Baba/Peristeri article, if you want to merge it with the Varnous article, be my guest. But that's not what you in fact did. What you did was to turn the Baba Mountain article into a second Varnous article, providing no reason at all why you suddenly chose to give the Greek names consistently higher prominence (when the larger geographical part of the massif, including its highest peaks, all seem to be on the Macedonian side). Before you fiddle around with the weight given to the different names, please assemble some evidence about what is used in English, and how. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, is it possible for a mount in the heart of Macedonia (region) to have a "Macedonian side" and consequently a "non Macedonian side"? You mean the Macedonian side of Greece or the Macedonian side of "Republic of Macedonia"?

About the "Republic of Macedonia" disambiguation, I explained it in the page I created. If that wasn't enough I am willing to answer more questions. But, I think everyone understood what exactly the disambiguation was?

You are right when you say that you didn't find evidence (at least in English) for the Republic of macedonia that established in 1916. I couldn't find my self either. Don't be prejudiced because no other said this before. Greeks don't know history at all. And also, it is impossible for a Greek (even an academic) to search the newspapers of that era. Because most of them, just don't care.

For the Varnous or Varnoundas mountain, I didn't make a search first. And i didn't see the other article Varnous. I saw it later. I will unite them sometime when I have more time. But, that is not a reason not to mention the Greek name at all. Although, I know that Skopjans call it more often with the second Greek name Pelister (Greek Peristeri), as I have visited Monastiri (Bitola) many times. Baba name is a Turkish name. Skopjans adopted it because thay didn't want to adopt a Greek name for the mountain. But the local people still call it Peristeri/Pelister (in both countries).

For all the rest you are right.

User:Pyraechmes Chrusts 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Colbert Busch image

I fail to see how your flagging the uploaded image of Elizabeth Colbert Busch fails a fair use. It is the PR campaign photo from her campaign site, being used in the article about her. Lestatdelc (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read the policy I referred you to. On Wikipedia, we do not use non-free photographs of people when we could get new, free photographs of them instead, even if we would be legally entitled to under "fair use" rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope I am not violating any norms.

I had stated a new section on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K._P._Yohannan by the heading Cleaning up the controversy section. If I am violating any norms please let me know and remove the section. Benedictdilton (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Karan Rao Centerstage.jpg Removed Why?

Can you provide me a reason why that file has deleted? that was a fair use. I had provided the statement that the owner don't have any problem and the image was deleted without a notice > > ??????????

We can't use non-free images of living people, where it would always be possible for somebody to create a free alternative. Also, you falsely labelled the file as a "unique historic photograph", which it obviously isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments left at RfA

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied there. And you are right, I handled the SPI discussion not as good as I should've. Trout me, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. [57]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Lotus Birth

I welcome reviews of references and collaboration towards perfection - that is what Wikipedia is about. Your dyspepsia related to this page is, however, a disservice. And, quite the contrary, Fut Per at Sunrise, I have worked very hard to incorporate diverse references pertinent to the global clinical conversation in various aspects, as well as an inter-disciplinary approach. Human development is my area of academic study, involving a full range of science & arts. Though not a programmer, my Wikipedia scholarship offerings are solid.

My agenda is to build a page where theoretical and visual education provide current sources, encourage more research, and serve as a community education resource.

Your accusation of tenditious is perhaps more a reflection of your personal opinion of the topic, as my references are quality. I have contributed to Wikipedia for over 6 years, and even been awarded for my contributions, despite my lack of advanced technical skills which involve many edits per session and difficulties at times with image uploading. --KellyPhD (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My warning to you stands. If you cannot see how your previous edits were tendentious, that in itself is proof how necessary the warning was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Lotus Birth

P.S. I saw the stub you made - wow, kind of ugly, after all that good work. Hope the review proves expedient and helpful.

Though Lotus Birth is an area of particular personal scholarship, I have also contributed to many other pages: Asana, Guru, Shakti, Rishi, Yogi, Yogini, Doula, Home Birth, Midwifery, etc. For several years I also helped protect pages from blatantly illegal, profit-oriented linkage and marketing verbage that continually crops up on the Cord Blood Bank related pages.

You may be an editor, and you are obviously more technically advanced than I, but your dyspepsia is not conducive to community or collaboration. The lotus birth page has received very little help until now, when you notice I've added a ton of stuff due to the current mass media surge on the topic. Rather than contribute, or question, you make it a stub? This isn't just about the topic, it's about an emotional reaction to the topic and/or the visuals, obviously. --KellyPhD (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your ad hominems will not be tolerated. Final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I just looked at your page and saw that you are a real Admin. Would you please inform as to whether my references are being reviewed at all, as was suggested in your original post? The reverted version, contains much less current data, so the page now lacks several pertinent current evidence-based journal citations, journalist article links, and inter-disciplinary sources. I am not a Wikipedia technical expert, but I do contribute sound references. --KellyPhD (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not myself knowledgeable on medical topics, so all I can do is to hope that some of the competent folks at the medicine wikiproject will be willing to lend a hand. As I said, you too are quite welcome to participate in the rewriting and to reintroduce whatever properly cited, neutral material there may have been. But – and this is a big "but", so please take it seriously – what you need to do is to radically change your entire approach and attitude towards this article when working on it again. Previously, you were misusing the article for promoting a certain position. You absolutely must stop doing that. If you are so much invested in the topic that you can't abstract away from your own opinions in writing about it, then don't write about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotus birth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umbilicus (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) 13:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Coterie

Your position requires practicing objectivity, which in turn particularly applies to refraining from personal attacks. I trust your comment @ Piotrus' RfA "2" was not meant for me. As far as I can tell from the proceedings, apparently, to support is to conspire, to oppose is to protect WP. Please keep your future comments limited to the RfA candidate. There are dozens of editors supporting Piotrus having nothing to do with "coteries". VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ani notice

Ani notice [[58]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin requests

Would you mind closing this discussion and protecting William Shakespeare's life, which seems to be attracting a lot of IP vandalism? Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole yet again

Hi. This time disrupting the Mors Martell SPI case and trolling on Dougweller's talk page as Icelandic cuisine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Please could you block their account. Also please could somebody block the 10 or more sock accounts of Echigo mole identified at the SPI page? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking four more of the socks. Echigo mole has started trolling on his own SPI report page (his silly game of making a new SPI/CU on two named accounts who are obviously nor him, together with a a variety of anonymous IPs) using Nutritious nut the last of the following set of accounts already confirmed by checkuser as him:

• Cawdor to Glamis express (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blue cheese mite (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mandrake turn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nutritious nut (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please could you block these accounts? Thanks in advance. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's another obvious sockpuppet leaving SPI notifications on all the talk pages of socks that have turned up in the CU reports: Evenings and mornings (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). A megatroll at work. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Silicate minerals (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is another Echigo mole sock with standard Echigo mole type trolling on User talk:Memills and WP:ANI. Please could you block this account. Thanks in advance. Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello again. Ultra snozbarg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an indef blocked sock of Echigo mole who decided it would be fun to make an unblock request after one year of being blocked. It was obvious at the time that he had followed me to various specialist mathematics articles that I had been creating. (I mention them on his talk page.) His first edit was a redirect to oscillator representation. He is trolling on his talk page and no administrator has so far responded to him. Please could you review the request and, if necessary, revoke his talk page access? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Homophone disambiguation

Hello, FP, in lingustics, what is the name of the phenomenon of "strengthening" words/phrases which have become so phonologically reduced that they're ambiguous or hard to hear? e.g. French aujourd'hui 'on the day of today' for hui /ɥi/ (< presumably from Latin hodie 'this day'), or "est-ce que c'est" /eskəse/ 'is it that it is' for "est-ce" /es/ 'is it'. Thanks. --Macrakis (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering earlier. I was thinking about this but couldn't find any fixed technical term either. I'd probably call it "lexical reinforcement" or something like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassing email

I haven't been editing for several months because of being busy. I clearly posted this on my talk page. Now I'm getting harassing and insulting emails from somebody in the MMA project, LlamaAl (jamilfutbol@yahoo.es). I can't figure out how to report it so an admin can do something about it. Can you help me out? Willdawg111 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't do much as long as I don't know more about the contents of those mails and as long as I can't verify what you're saying. Can you forward them to me via WP e-mail? (Please don't post their text on-wiki though, as that is generally frowned upon.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I do that?Willdawg111 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just go to the "E-mail this user" link on the left of this page, and paste the text into your mail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-free use of image

Instead of requesting that a non-free image be deleted on the grounds that a free replacement exists, why don't you just upload the free replacement? DavidBrooksPokorny (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)