User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 6

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007

Welcome back

It's nice to see you're back from your holiday :-) --Domitius 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous?

I'm a bit confused/curious... Why are the entries you removed from Germanic superfluous? My understanding of disambiguation pages says that those types of entries are exactly what should be listed -- those pages are very closely related to the ones left behind, they include the disambiguated word as a key part of the article's title, and (not necessarily a good reason, but even so) similar things are listed on other disambig pages, as well as pages which are far less related to the given disambig word than the Germanic ones. Germanic could very easily mean the culture/history, and that's what those links were about, which is a good part of why I'm quite so confused. -Bbik 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:DAB, "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong". For instance, the term "Germanic", on its own, could never be confused with "Germanic Wars". You don't say "Germanic" when you mean "Germanic Wars". Likewise, you wouldn't type "Germanic" in the search box when you are looking for "Germanic Wars"; you'd go to "Germanic Wars" directly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus

For the record, I asked User:Sandstein to intervene when a new spate of edits followed block expiry. He specified a procedure, which I followed, but that only led to a counter-complaint by a third party. I feel that the responsibilty for enforcement of Arbitration decisions lies with the administrators, and that users should not be exposed to retaliatory action, if they do complain about apparent violations. I have asked Sandstein to exclude third parties.Paul111 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you imposed a block while I was writing that. As for your comments. I don't see any alternative to reverts of the disputed reverts, since all the issues have been discussed for months at the articles talk page, without consensus.Paul111 12:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? I don't think so.

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I am the user, who registerd just so, because you accused me of vandalism. My acts - editing a pages, which were full of lies. Both historically, linguistically and just plain realistically.

I edited the pages, concerning the so called "Macedonian language", the "Mecadonian" cities of Ohrid, Kumanovo and several other pages as a guest, correcting many, but not all inaccuracies in them.

Now, I know that many people in the world support the thesis of the Macedonian nation. That dispute is quite old, yet this is a case, in which there is only one real situation - there are no Macedonians in Macedonia. Those people were forced with horrific measures by the Royal Serbian and Jugoslavian state to deny their Bulgarian personality and become a new nation.

Currently, the government in my country (Bulgaria) supports this thesis of Macedonians, Macedonian language and Macedonian state. But I am a free citizen of the European Union. I demand my opinion to be respected. My acts are not vandalism and I stand by them.

I expect an appology and at least the option for another opinion to exist into those pages. The people, that constantly monitor them are not the only ones with an opinion and they do not have the right to broadcast their propaganda in such a way.

Have a nice day.

Geori "El D34dlyto" Draganov Freedom Studios.net PR Student in the NGDEK Classical Gymnasium, Sofia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El D34dlyto (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Your esteemed name

May I congratulate you on your name? I usually take a minute from editing to praise editors with absurd, rotund, extreme, elegant or fanciful names. Yours has a magical and elegaic quality, reminiscent of jazz records, past experiences with interesting animals in the countryside and a subtle tilt at post-modernism. Well done! MarkThomas 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you

Feel very ashamed of what you're doing to that Rex G guy. You are an admin unworthy, on the Dutch wikipedia you'd be removed as one thats for sure.213.125.116.112 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist material on Wikipedia

Articles on individual nations, peoples, and countries, and the country history articles, attract nationalist propagandists. They insert pseudohistory and nationalist claims - see Malësi e Madhe District for an example - usually without any source. There is usually no reliable source, since historians and other specialists are sceptical of such claims. The best thing to do in such cases is to put your foot down: don't seek consensus, and certainly don't "assume good faith", aggressively remove unsourced claims, and aggressively revert their re-insertion. That leads to edit wars, and to heated comments on the talk page, and in turn that frightens off other editors. It is obstructive editing, deliberately so. Nevertheless, it usually works, and the propagandists give up in the end.

In the case of Dutch (people) it didn't work, and when it is pointless, then the option is to simply abandon the article, and leave it online in its propagandistic version. Wikipedia is not my website, and I don't suffer if the articles are wrong or slanted. It is a choice for Wikipedia itself, whether it is primarily an online forum (of a special type), or primarily an encyclopedia. In practice it is more of a forum, and while it works for collaborative non-controversial articles, it fails as an encyclopedia for controversial subjects.

If there is an arbitration on this issue, it would give the committee a chance to think these things over. I think they ought to back the encyclopedia aspect, and therefore abandon consensus editing, and with it such things as good-faith assumptions. They ought to back "deletionist obstructive editing" of propagandistic material. That would improve the quality of content, but it would be the end of much Wikipedia tradition, so it is unlikely.Paul111 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

slap with the wikitrout

What does it mean please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TROUT. A trout is a variant of a cluebat, used to gently adjust the clue level of someone who isn't getting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, thanks, but I don't see the point :( ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... :-) Well, it's just a humorous way of saying someone needs a "slap" (metaphorical, of course) because they are being dense or otherwise off the track. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh I see now :-D Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek

Would you look at Darwinek's block of User:Ross.Hedvicek? It looks like Ross and Darwinek were mixing it up at AfD including this gem [1] and the only 3RR violation I can find in Ross's contribs in the removal of an NPA warning from his own talk page. Do you agree (rather a hasty look, I'm late for work). Also you may wish to review User:Thatcher131/temp. Thatcher131 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also his block of User talk:Tulkolahten [2] although in that case he did apologize (but seemingly for miscounting reverts, not for blocking when he was involved). Thatcher131 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind this edit [3] where Ross Hedvicek personally attacks contributor to the Ivan Spacek's deletion discussion, he was very uncivil. Vaguely translated "are you all fucked" ?

My block by Darwinek was between us, I please demand this block not to be reviewed or used against him in any way.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If Ross and Darwinek were being uncivil to each other, all the more reason to have the block placed by an uninvolved admin. And I have never before seen an admin block a user over removal of warnings from the user's own talk page. There is broad consensus that we don't do that. Thatcher131 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

What exactly means Rfc, not the shortage, but the meaning of the process. Is that between admins now ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, everybody is free to comment. If you want to do that, it's strongly recommended to stick to the specific format of comments: you either open a section of your own ("==Outside view by Tulkolahten=="), or you just sign somebody else's comment where it says "users who endorse this summary"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Why is my request at [4] to protect Pilsener due to the eidt warring still omitted ? Not accepted not declined, it stays there whole day. Can you please check it ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Those admin pages easily get backlogged once in a while. That said, I don't really see a pressing need for protection in this case, there's plenty of room for you guys to tinker constructively with the article to find suitable compromises, as long as you don't resort to blind sterile revert-warring. I'll leave the request open for other admins to check, though. By the way, did the "Bürger-Brauerei" ever officially use a Czech name back in the 19th century? These would be the kinds of things that ought to be determined by citing sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I wanted to discuss it and I requested sources. But they still don't want to discuss and Matthead's entry is arrogant [5]. I don't want edit warring so I wanted to calmly discuss - but no response. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2‎. Even though this dispute is only a few hours old, I feel his responses, both on the RFC page and on the talk page, demonstrate that he lacks the judgement needed to be an administrator, at least regarding topics related to Czech nationalism and ethnicity. I have filed a request for arbitration; you may wish to comment there. Thatcher131 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Give that guy some peace Thatcher131, let him calm down, summarize what he wants to say. You are handling with him like with the worst vandal ever, he did not break Wikipedia. He deserves little more patience. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RfARB

I see this [6] may I put my statement on this or it is just for RFC? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon edits on Greek ethnic groups

You might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/85.73.64.144. Some of the changes make sense, others I am not sure. See what you think. --Macrakis 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I was already on the case, see my comment on Talk:Arvanites. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:VBelmont.png

I don't know if you read the image discription, but I personally asked Veronica Belmont if she would allow an image of herself on wikipedia, and which one if so... She told me to upload that one... and I did. You had no right to delete the picture, especially without warning the uploader (so that perhaps he could tell you that you were wrong in doing so)...

--Alegoo92 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The description page said: "Taken with explicit permission from Belmont's profile at: http://www.last.fm/user/earlysound/. Due to terms of permission, this image is only for use in the article Veronica Belmont. Licensing: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}" - Please read our image policies at Wikipedia:Copyright. In order to be a "free" encyclopedia, we can only host image content that is truly free for all to use. That means we can't use licenses that restrict the image use to a single article. If Belmont wants her image on Wikipedia, she needs to release it under a license that allows anybody to reuse it anywhere, inside and outside Wikipedia. Also, you did the wrong thing by then adding the cc-by-sa tag, because it contradicts the license you described - if it's "only for use in the article", it isn't cc-by-sa. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

hey, thanks...

for unblocking me. I promise to make good contributions from now on. I really appreciate your help.

Who is it?

[7]--Domitius 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares. Try deleting it yourself once and you'll be on his next list. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would you mind helping me keep an eye on this R9tgokunks (talk · contribs)? I don't know how to deal with him, he's not really a vandal but his edits are terrible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK u EVIL VANDAL :) --Domitius 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC

Move Balkan linguistic union

Could you please move Balkan linguistic union to Balkan sprachbund (note: two words in English) per the discussion at Talk:Balkan_linguistic_union#Balkansprachbund -- undisputed since 12 March. Thanks --Macrakis 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I haven't got much time right now cleaning up the double redirects. Could you lend a hand? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, will you be in Greece in August? --Macrakis 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, don't know yet. I'll certainly go for a visit some time later this year, but not sure when. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Europe

I don't think he knows what he is doing, just at least Israel is not in Europe. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, könnst-du mir mit diesem benutzer bitte helfen.--Domitius 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could also do something about the persistent anon(s) at Balkans. They keep removing the highly sourced fact that Croatia is a Balkan country and place it in the "sometimes Balkan" category. The problem is that's unsourced, all sources consider Croatia a Balkan country. Check the page history, if all these anons were a logged in user, he would have been blocked for violating the 3RR by now.--Domitius 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Amfipol

Hi, I added a paragragraph in the article about the Greek city Amfipoli. Could you look at and maybe it edit? It's the last paragraph. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfipoli Thanks! Neptunekh Neptunekh 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch (ethnic group)

It is not self-evident that there should be an article on this subject at all: what you mean is that a Dutch people exist. That is not however a reason to treat them as an ethnic group, a little-used designation. The limitation to ethnic group was made simply to facilitate the irredentist/nationalist content in the current version. I don't see why that version should not go up for deletion, with the current title and content, but the decision has been made to let the propaganda stand, and as I indicated already, there is no point in further procedures. I don't suffer any harm because a Wikipedia article is wrong, and I have no personal interest in ensuring Wikipedia quality or accuracy - unless an article affects me directly, and 99.9% never would. Wikipedia has to decide whether it is about content or about consensus, and as you no doubt have seen Citizendium goes to the other extreme and insists on specialist knowledge to write initial versions. I doubt if that will work either, but content clearly has a low priority at Wikipedia.Paul111 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your comment. Best wishes. E104421 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why are you deleting my own images and images of my friends?

I may not be normal, but you're definitely more problematic 151.44.158.152 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One last time. You are banned. Not just blocked by me, banned by the community. Wikipedia is no longer interested in your opinion on what images to use.

I would have loved to see those images in Wikipedia, personally. But we need the proper license. Those photographers need to state the license, themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=212521

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/sh/?txt=istanbul%3Adominican

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=376528

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=369160

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=460075

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=460077

151.44.158.152 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please take a look at TRNC. I believe an EU report on languages is being mispreresnted as an official EU census on the Turkish Cypriot population. Please see the talk, thanks, --A.Garnet 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 15:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand back again

Hello dear FP, he is back again with another one of his dozens of sock puppets. This is really annoying. Please try to ban this one too. Aero_stud24. Thanks. --Behnam 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhghgh. It's a relatively old account, from long before he was banned. Have we got any concrete evidence that it's him, other than that he's pushing a Pashto POV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We could check his IP address. Or just take a look at his edits. They are the exact same edits that he and his other sockpuppets made [8]. Behnam 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch declension

comment mistakenly placed on user page, moved here

Hi, Actually no the edits are meant to reflect the Dutch declension system as it stands today in Standard Modern Dutch. I have been discussing for a week that Dutch declension is archaic and that the facts of that article are disputed. But people keep referring back to grammar articles at nl.wikipedia.org as authoritative and saying that the "Archaic" part should be deleted and this article should just stand as "Dutch declension system", as if it were a system in use today. Even though the grammar articles at nl.wikipedia.org are just as misleading as far as Standard Modern dutch is concerned. I have been doing two things with this article

1) Change the meta-commentary so that it reflects the fact that the Dutch declension system here described is not the one in use in standard modern dutch and highlight that the system here described was an arbitrary and invented system which was never productively used by Dutch people, and that Dutch people do not and have not since the 1600s "felt" case (like say Czechs or Russians or Germans do). 2) To the extent that this was an arbitrary and invented system, but did exist and was enforced from circa 1860-1935, make some corrections as to errata and certain references to Flemish usage (which is not standard Dutch and shouldn't be here as an alternative). However, there are many charts and I think I have probably missed a few errors. The constant references to Flemish usage of indefinite article "ene" particularly worries me as this is simply a variant and has absolutely nothing to do with Dutch declension, imagined or real.

In short, I think this whole article is and was very misleading.

Duprie37 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW I'm referring to he page Dutch declension system

which now has been changed to Archaic Dutch declension as I agree it should be Duprie37 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two similar pages, both of which I have been editing.

As for my sources, I am a native Dutch speaker with a degree in Linguistics majoring in the History of Germanic Grammars from The University of Melbourne in Australia

Duprie37 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As to "universally loathed"...I don't know...it is hard to describe being forced to learn and write in a case system which has nothing to do with the way you speak. To have to constantly look up words for their gender in dictionaries just to write a letter "correctly" to someone. I'm too young myself to know really, it was gone when I went to Dutch schools, but my parents still tell horror tales about it. I agree the language may be too polemic, but it's also true. Dutch speakers absolutely loathe the memory of the enforced case system. besides, there is also the strong association with the formerly hated language German. But feel free to change my words if you think that would be better. I don't mind.

In any case, I'm sure some "grammar expert" will come along tomorrow and revert it all back to the way it was last night. Duprie37 19:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but this has been going on for ages, since like late last year I realised something went wrong, I asked Rex Germanus to rewrite some of the pages relating to grammar, which some unknown users with almost the same ip, Bombshell, Govert Mierveld and another user keep reverting it to the old way (I doubt they come from one or two people). All the days I hope it gains attention to other contributors or mods and seems like the day has come, thanks a lot. matt-(my page-leave me a message) 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But seriously...

Is there any way I can exclude myself from Hagermanbot's annoying messages? Perhaps a tag of some sort to put on my page? I am well aware of the need for signatures at this point so the warnings are simply annoyances. The Behnam 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Now I won't be pushed into a personal attack against the, uh, non-person. 141.213.211.172 19:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the image?

You deleted the following images from a couple of entries including Florida International University and Florida International University School of Architecture pages. Why? I don't see how they are wrong. Please explain. File:Fiu soa.jpg File:Fiu stad2.jpg

User & User Talk Pages

Sorry for accidentally vandalising your User page! It appears I wasn't paying attention.

Duprie37 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: image closures

Regarding the message you left on my talk page, that's a lot if information to digest all at once. It will not be possible for me to review the individual cases and study what decision I made and try to learn from the situation, as you have deleted the images. I wonder what the hurry was to delete them instead of discussing it first? If the only lesson you wanted me to learn was don't close image deletion debates at all, then that's simple... but if you wanted me to become more familiar with the procedures, then this will require more discussion. I am quite certain that the law says "a 2-dimensional representation (either rawing or photograph) of a 3-dimensional work on public display may be made and distributed without consulting the copyright holder without violating the rights of the copyright holder." The 3-dimensional work itself is copyrighted. In other words, the architect who designed the staduim would have legal protection against somebody building another stadium, but not against people making drawings and photographs of it. In addition, the law states that such 2-dimensional works are not subject to copyright, and therefore are inherantly public domain. This means that even though the architect who designed the statium can not sue me for making a drawing of his stadium, I can not claim copyright rights on such a drawing.

As for the rest, as I said I can not review the details because you deleted them. But my recollection of the ship Bodacea, was that the uploader claimed it was created by a US Government employee, and that he got it from the National archive office, where he worked? That seems like it would be fine, as well. If you are saying he has to provide some additional proof that his 60-year old photograph was really created by a US government employee, then that sounds a bit more like copyright paranoia than anything else. Perhaps you are a deletionist and don't like non-admins closing these discussions? If that is the case, then please just say so, and we can all save alot of time. If not... then please provide a copy of the image page records for the images you deleted which I closed, and put it in my user space so I can review them. Thanks, Jerry 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the "haste" is just because - well, we get so many questionable fair use images, I'm just finding I can't keep up if I don't assume "shoot first, ask questions later". (see my little essay at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Fair use. As for the cases you question, let me see: as for the 2D/3D thing, I have the feeling you are mixing two things up: (1) A work of architecture in public view (in the US) can indeed be freely photographed without infringing on the copyright of the architect - but then the photographer has a copyright on the image; (2) the case referred to in {{pd-art}} states that when photographing a 2D work of art, the photographer may not establish copyright of their own, so the copyright on the photograph remains that of the creator of the original work of art. These two cases don't go together, and in neither case does the resulting photograph automatically become free for third parties. As for the Bodacea image, the uploader stated it was from a British, not US government source; unlike the Americans, the Brits do retain copyright on such images.

As for the process, I certainly don't mind non-admins helping to watch image usage, but I'd recommend to be more cautious with making edits that have the appearance of binding decisions as long as you're not absolutely certain you understand the policies well enough. Am I a deletionist? Well, I'm not of the fanatic anti-fair-use crowd, but I do believe "fair use" is a widely abused notion on WP; my estimate is that about 80% of our alleged fair-use images really aren't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. My involvement stemmed from the new autotagging policy which seems to have been implemented sometime in late January. The system seems to have created quite a backlog. The initial templates stated the deletion review would be concluded in 4 days... when they reached the 40-day point, I realized that the issue needed more attention. I initially consulted an admin about it and asked if it would be appropriate for me to close images that met the following conditions:

• Nobody expressed agreement that the image should be deleted (in other words the only delete !vote was the system autotag).
• The user did express some plausible fair use criteria, or one was readily apparent to me
• all of the fair use criteria of WP:FUC were met, including:
  • No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
  • The image is not used in any manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • The amount of copyrighted work used is as little as possible. (ie: A low-resolution image has been used instead of a high-resolution image, and or the image is cropped.)
  • The image has previously been published and this is clearly stated on the image page.
  • The image is encyclopedic and otherwise meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
  • The image meets the media-specific policy requirements.
  • The image is used in at least one article.
  • The image contributes significantly to the article(s) in which it is used
  • It is not used in a manner as to serve a purely decorative purpose.
• The image description contains:
  • Proper attribution of the source of the material/ copyright holder.
  • An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.
  • A list of articles in which fair use of the image is asserted.

I was told it would be okay for me to do so, as long as I used the correct templates, edit summaries, and made sure due diligence was followed to ensure all of the requirements are met.

I look at the image page, its talk page, the article(s) page(s) and its(their) associated talk pages(s) and only close those discussions that had no editors express concern, and obviously met the WP:FUC, in my judgement.

I can see that from what you are saying that I confused the US Government and UK Government laws; and that the drawing of the stadium does not count as a 2-d reproduction of a 3-d sculpture. These laws are rather esoteric, so it takes some experience with the various facets to learn these things, I guess.

I think that it would just be more helpful to have a discussion with an editor making a good faith effort to clear the backlog, rather than to hastily revert his efforts, and tell him to be go learn the policies. I really did try to learn the policies, you know, and there are plenty of examples of others who have closed using the 2D/3D argument, which is where I learned it.

So where should we go from here? Should I just back off and leave this to the experts, or should I continue to be bold and help clear the backlog? Jerry 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, and sorry if I sounded condescending. I guess the main point where our judgments differed was that thing about "contributing significantly" to the content of the article. I tend to interpret that far more strictly, in light of how I understand what's said at Fair use (the WP article, not the project page), and on this page: [9]. Recommended read. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and patience. I do appreciate the feedback. By the way, I look forward to someday being an admin, so your feedback, particularly on my participation in pseudo-adminish things is very helpful. Please do continue to give advice if you see I need it in the future. Thanks, Jerry 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome note! I hope to make a good contribution. Out of interest, are you an administrator here? Or just a very active user? Balkantropolis 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

Seriously, those are correct copyrights for those images, what's wrong. The ones you deleted of buildings ARE of buildings and that's what the copyright says, I don't understand why you think that's incorrect. That's so ridiculous.

I still don't see how they're wrong but okay. So, how do you put them back on? Do you have to contact the people on the website or just change the copyright? The images are not offensive and they're only beneficial to the page.

Fools Day

I was patrolling recent changes and it was the user name that caught my eye - first it seemed ok but it got really weird after a while, especially when I saw his user page and all the other pages that he created. Moreover, I actually wondered if it was me who had it all wrong. At one point it was scary, he was creating articles faster than I could add them to the AfD! Btw, there is still this: Columbia Pictures (film). I have been trying to clean up some of the modifications that he did to other articles. Thanks for getting on the case so fast though. Cheers! Baristarim 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM

One of the trainees jumped the gun on this request. I'll look into this. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CEM, what pray is that? Looks like another stalling device... you have my blessings, hopefully, in contrast to RFCs and voluntary mediation, this scheme will actually work :) --Domitius 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW FP, could you do something about Pulvis angelus's latest sock. Details are here. Thanks.--Domitius 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again my questions are unanswered. What slurring and ethnic insults do you mean? Balkantropolis 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Balkantropolis

Good work! Rklawton 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Declension System

I'm sorry if I deleted some of your (correct) changes to Dutch Declensio System. Please apply them again. Due to repetitive vandalism, reverting and moving of user:Rex Germanus I had to restore the page to an earlier state. Govert Miereveld 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you allready had a note about user:Rex Germanus.

Hope I apllied all of your changes.

Govert Miereveld 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent reversions

I noticed you have been combing through my contributions lately. Is there something I should be concerned about? —M (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your continued folloing of my edits is becoming disturbing. Please stop. —M (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Adem Somyurek/Somyürek

I noticed that a fork you reverted has been re-reverted (about 5 weeks ago!) I don't want to wander into the situation uninvited, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. Cheers! -- Js farrar 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Do you know who this user is User:ReinesLicht? I suspect (obviously I could be wrong) that he could be a sock of some sorts.. The editing pattern and the articles concerned resembles someone, again, in my opinion. Baristarim 01:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I was indeed just trying to add a few lines to a stub. Thanks again for being fair.cs 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cs did not file a 3RR report as you incorrectly told El C. Please refrain from saying this again as this is not true. KazakhPol 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, right, Cs filed some earlier request, right? Anyway, somehow you managed to call Dmc's wrath upon you, doesn't much matter how, does it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the remainder

I think I just need to give a wikibreak. I am sure someone will take up where I left. thanks.cs 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

No, I wasn't aware of the behaviour. For various reasons, it actually shouldn't have surprised me - I apologise for not looking further into it. I cleared out about 100 speedies last night. Now that I am aware, I have undone my own deletion of the tennis ball one and removed the speedy tag from it Orderinchaos 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh - just noticed they *had* been undeleted - I usually do check that. I will be more careful next time. Orderinchaos 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps!

Hi! Any new poems?! My anthology is still very poor, and it needs quality stuff!

Now, do you remember the instructions about maps you had given me. Well, I think we should re-start from scratch! Listen what is my problem. I am workin on Battle of Greece; the main map there is taken from a site, where I could find no specific information about its copyright status, if it is free its commercial use etc. Anyway, I went to the French article, and I found there a French version of the map above (Image:Battle of Greece WWII map-fr.png) created by a Wikipédian, and two more excellent maps:

• Image:Bataille de Grèce09avril1941.PNG
• Image:BatailledeGrèce15041941.JPG.

If these maps were to be added to the article, they would help it become of very high quality, and would also make my copyright worries disappear! How could I translate them to English? Could you help?

Oh! Καλό Πάσχα!--Yannismarou 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Info

Just a question, what do you think about this? Baristarim 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I remember Xebat and it's certainly not D.Kurdistani.--Domitius 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How possible? Your oldest edit; Feb.5.2007, Xebat's latest edit; April 3 2006. Do you have another relation?Must.^{T C} 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FP knows ;-) --Domitius 16:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not enough.Wiki is not a funclub.If you have an allege, and there are some suspicions about your allege, you must bring evidences/replies, othervise take your allege back.Must.^{T C} 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the allegations around here.--Domitius 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Domitius is not a sock of anyone, he just keeps on changing his user name.. :) Baristarim 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, FPaS, I filed a checkuser for that case, but I would like to hear your opinion all the same if you have an idea.. cheers! Baristarim 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FPaS, Domitius created this article Kurdish Genocide in Turkey one minute after he hit 3RR in reverts at the main dab page. Can you please do something about this disruption? How many times is this Dirak/Dom whatever going to disrupt Wikipedia? Not to mention all those articles he created during the debate at Ottoman WWI casualties.. Baristarim 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly disruption. The AFD has no result to delete, there is no consensus to delete. Just fulfilling the admins recommendations to help readers find what they are looking for.--Domitius 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your creation of a new article one minute after you have reached 3RR and your removal of the speedy tag when it is expressly banned is.. FPaS, can you please do something about this? What has this user contributed to Wikipedia except disrupt and revert? Baristarim 20:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is it banned? Point it to me because I may have missed it.--Domitius 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It clearly says on the speedy template that: "do not remove it from pages that you have created yourself" :) Baristarim 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Archive_6, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, and I've got those hydrokinetic bounthekphoretic tools from you, so I'll have this place cleaned up in no time. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check your mail

Hi, it looks like you're editing now. I sent you a rather urgent e-mail many hours ago, so could you check your mail, please? Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I guess you'd just stopped editing... I've posted my concern over your 3-day 3RR block here on WP:ANI, as Justanother has been waiting an unconscionable time to have his unblock request reviewed. I suppose he's a victim of the holidays. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

User:Mattheads disruption of my work and reversions based on nothing but a personal grudge.

Recently,

• I moved Holländer → Hollander, for the simple reason that on the disambiguation page, "Hollander" was more dominant than both "Holländer and "Hollaender" combined. Nevertheless, and without any explanation Matthead reverts.

• I moved Pommersch → Pomeranian (German dialect), for the simple reason that it is the English term. Nevertheless, and without any explanation Matthead reverts.

• I moved Last battle of the battleship Bismarck → The sinking of the Bismarck, because its more appealing and less long. Nevertheless Matthead reverts.

As an explanation he leaves a personal attack on my talk page. (here)

He also removed dozens of -tags on the Ethnic German article and removed -tags I added to Swiss Germans. In both edit summaries he mentions my name.

This cannot be a coincidence. He watches my edits and then reverts without any summary them hoping to annoy me. This is just terrorising people and causing them a lot more work. Do something about this.Rex 11:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand is getting very annoying

Hello FlutePerf. user:NisarKand is back again and he is using another one of his old sockpuppets. He is getting very annoying with his vandalism. He is making totally outrageous edits and trying to get me to RV them so that I get blocked. Here is his account User:Aero stud24 and here are his edits. Please do something about him. Thanks.

ps: Sorry about arguing with you over my last block. My appologies. --Behnam 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

(Sorry for being late). --PaxEquilibrium 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Χρόνια Πολλά κι Ευτυχισμένα, και του χρόνου τριπλός! :-) NikoSilver 11:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way

The images I uploaded under Nazım Hikmet were all mine, taken personally by myself.

And you mistakenly deleted the Bosphorus University image which was fairly uploaded by someone else.

But I quit.

Your only contribution seems to be destroying other people's work (I hope they are paying you for this because it must be hell of a boring job)

If all that's necessary is to make some money donation to become a Wiki administrator, bear in mind that I have "lots and lots and lots" of money inherited from my family (I don't even have to work, to tell the truth. That's why I'm enjoying life in my villa on Lake Como :p)

Arthur Bach says Auf Wiedersehen. As your boss, probably.

I apologize for my Passionate Grik Response

I was right to be upset for your unfair deletions of my own images, but I was wrong to use excessively rude and stereotypical words. Being a Turk (another widely stereotyped nation) accused of the Armenian Genocide and numerous other violent episodes in history, I am in no position to claim superior national moral values than you either.

I felt bad about myself -couldn't sleep well- and wanted to say I'm sorry. I am aware of having behaved like a jerk.

Anyway, this is the last time you'll be hearing from me, so take care, Foot Pervert :)

And try not to mess with Passionate Griks in the future ( my mother's family is from Mytilene, Lesbos :D )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK7CP5PBkNk

PA and Tsilingaridis

Seeing you voting in this article's AfD, I though that maybe you should have also a look here], in Aldux's userpage, in the part where I speak about the article's editor personal attack against me. Cheers!--Yannismarou 10:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Gave a final warning, hope that's okay with you for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Block dis, fool

that's right
Parrisia 12:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your whack-a-mole prize

File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg

I, Durova, award the Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Prize to Future Perfect at Sunrise for tirelessly reblocking returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ole! Durova^Charge! 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cevapcici

Please take a look at the blind revert at [10]. Thanks. --Macrakis 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Macrakis did a good job and I totally overlooked it, never bothered to check quite what he did. My revert was over nothing. I did apologise and I am disappointed in myself, but we all learn. Sorry for the inconvenience, it won't happen again, and also thanks to you for getting to the bottom of the Barakovo hoax. Balkantropolis 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Proof

I saw that the copyvio link you sent to me doesn't work since I don't see anything but that the page doesn't exist and all the other images where of mine, well the fair use one I promised not to do so anymore but, I uploaded it exactly as it was required, with evrything filled in, and I fixed that map cleaning several elements so you aren't supposed to investigate better before banning me?

I suggest you to investigate more or give me the copyvio's real link 201.218.84.135 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Cpzphantom

Re

Thanks! I like the sombrero. :-) Khoikhoi 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Images to be added to Istanbul

Future Perfect, with your consent, I will be adding these images of Kerem (MeReK) to Istanbul:

LEVENT (Kerem used my shoulder as a tripod to take this night shot of Levent, so I can claim a share on it, LOL)

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3701&start=0

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4510

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12043&start=35

MASLAK

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215&start=30

ETİLER

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=230508

NİŞANTAŞI (we took these ones together)

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19120

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6372&start=5

GALATA (Arap Mosque, Genoese Palace, etc - we took these together)

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3451

PAMMAKARISTOS

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2674

BANKALAR CADDESİ (BANKS STREET) - I'm "Kazandibi" in WowTurkey by the way

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15793

TAKSIM SQUARE (we took them together from the bar of The Marmara Hotel on Taksim Square)

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2137

COLUMN OF MARCIANUS

http://wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=999

Regards

151.44.147.170 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you get the issue with the emporis guys sorted out? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They didn't say anything. Only the Pammakaristos, Arap Mosque and Levent images are uploaded to Emporis. For instance, the Etiler, Nişantaşı, Banks Street, and Maslak image (the one in the first Maslak link) are not even uploaded to Emporis. In any case, the images are too old (Levent's skyline changed dramatically since Kerem took that photo several years ago) and the photo is not even "commercial" according to Emporis (it is not one of the images they sell, as it was uploaded in GIF format and 600 pixels width to the Emporis site) so I don't think there will be any problems.

Regards.

151.44.147.170 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish straits

Ok, no problems - in fact when I had first created it I had wanted it to be a summary page, but along the way some other editors turned it into a dab.. Baristarim 06:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You are right, I changed some points there(no Dab anymore).Regards.Must.^{T C} 09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

[11]. Cheers, --RCS 06:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Page

I came across this talk page which is the duplicate of History of Pakistan. I was wondering to let you know if you can delete it. Thanks.Ariana310 13:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was apparently created by one user as a temporary aid for discussing a split or move proposal. It's not doing any harm there, is it? I'd keep it around at least until the debate is concluded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Elsie article

By the way, the Elsie article (with link) has been at Greek alphabet for some time. There is a fuller bibliography on Albanian in Greek characters in my article "Character codes for Greek: Problems and modern solutions" also referenced in Greek alphabet. I have lost my online copy, but I can type it in if it's useful to you. --Macrakis 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Salata

If you start an article for this idiom, I will tag as "merge" it; since this is not Greek idiom, a pure Turk idiom. Be careful! ):Regards.Must.^{T C} 21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you say it in Turkish? Salata yaptın? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason

I was trying only to correct some facts on the Copa Airlines article, just like that one on destinations and the whole award-winning thing but if you accept to read my proof and correct that yourself then I'll stop editing that article, I just was about to correct some facts on that article until I've got blocked, so, sorry if I didn't explained this very well to you, also, someone is editing the Copa holdings article with "Panamanian Carrier" when Copa is indeed "THE Panamanian FLAG carrier, so help me with this errors, so I can go away finally! Cpzphantom 201.224.23.196 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Salad issues

Thanks for the intervention. I'm wondering; what was wrong with the way I proposed the merger? I seemed to receive a very harsh reaction from that guy but I don't see what I did wrong at all. Was not he wrong in blindly removing the tag? The Behnam 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

300

Hi FPS, I hope you're active right now. Is this kind of behaviour allowed [12]? Either I should be reported under NPA or he should be explained by someone that what he does is wrong. He has removed/changed my text 4 times now. If you think I'm right can you please give him a warning or something? He's been hostile and provokative for having his POV rejected. Also you should be able to add a word or two about his POV on 'king' vs 'emperor'. I would appreciate your help, thanks in advance. Miskin 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that dreadful movie, still quarreling over it? That was actually a dispute I planned to keep out of. I can see there's quite a bit of incivility going round on those talkpages. As for revert-warring over a talkpage remark like that, I guess the best thing would be to simply let it go. It's neither a very nice remark, nor is insisting on its removal a particularly productive pursuit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Barakovo

Can you please put Barakovo Kosovo back? It was real, it was a collective work of Serbian nationalists who did everything they could to bury the evidence, just more cover-ups and more lies. As another independent unbiased editor, I know where Barakova is and have been there. All those who voted to delete it would do the same for every page where the Serbs spread their evil. Don't let them play games with you the way they tried with the west. We saw what happened. Shqipman 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks

As soon as unblocked, disruptive again: [13][14]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And this [15] and this [16] he keeps reverting and adding nonsenses. That guy don't know what czech language means and never hear that and tries to add his original research. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I must thank you for improving the template, i had forgotten about it completely after first creating the templates page. Also — I didn't say 'anything about the Czech language .... :| Why am I being personally attacked for something i haven't said?-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Second, I'm not doing anything wrong at Okres but User:RCS and Tulkolahten keep on attacking me personally... and at Alsace where i made the Histiory table, people keep reverting my work.... and saying it is VANDALISM? -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another personal attack:

"What you deserve is a clone of yourself pestering you as you pester us people from Alsace. RCS 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks:

• "it is Argentoratum, you bloody fool, now stop putting wrong infos in the article !"

• "== He's so insane =="
• "UserR9tgokunks is edit-warring me to keep WRONG INFORMATIONs in an article : [17]. This is just crazy !!!! RCS 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 18:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will stop on those pages, I have stopped reverting. But people are strange... they are vandalizing it but calling me a vandal when i RE-add the information they removed...-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kreis

See= Category:Country subdivisions

• [www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=1E7B3883-2A97-4A93-A3AC-2D488F219C31] (PDF FILE) quote: "Roudnice belonged to the Slánský region (Slánský kraj, Schlaner Kreis)"

• [18]

quote: "KRAJ KREIS REGION a large region, including several districts. The oldest administrative unit of the state"

• [19] (translated: [20]

from section Alte böhmische Kreise (eng: Old bohehmian circles) ".... Eine solche Verwaltungseinheit hieß in den Urkunden auf deutsch Kreis, auf tschechisch kraj und auf lateinisch circulus)" Translated:"...Such a administrative unit was called in the documents on German circle, on Czech kraj and on Latin circulus"

From Districts of Serbia "The slavic word okrug (округ) denotes administrative subdivision in some states. Its etymology is similar to the German Kreis, circle (in the meaning of administrative division) (although translated in German as Bezirk): okrug is literally something "encircling"."

• see [21]

• [22]
• [23]

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG Problem

for quick reference: commons:Image:Pixel aspect ratio pixelseitenverhaeltnis ntsc480p pal576p hdtv720p hdtv1080p uhdv4320p by hdtvtotal com.svg

Ist das hier für dich okay, wenn wir deutsch Sprechen, oder hast du eine seperate Diskussionsseite für deutsche Unterhaltung? Ich bechränke es auf meiner Diskussionseite hier in der en.wiki nur auf englisch zu reden, damit alle hier das lesen können. also wenn dich das nicht stört, gib mir doch bitte bescheid, oder sag mir wo das alternativ möglich wäre. grüße, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kein Problem, wir können hier deutsch oder englisch sprechen, wie es dir am bequemsten ist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

dann lieber auf deutsch, weil ich dann weniger nachdenken muss ;). in deinem babelbaum steht ja drin, dass du deutsch als muttersprache sprichst, also sollte es so am besten sein.

wenn ich das umwandle gehen ja die ganzen zusatzinfos wie fontsize, farbe und position verloren, muss ich dann alle angaben neumachen oder kann ich die irgendwie übernehmen? und wenn wir schon dabei sind, ist das wirklich nur die schrift? ich will ungern mehr als nötig "kaputte" versionen des bildes hochladen müssen ;). vielleicht kann man das irgendwo testen. grüße, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ja, das Problem habe ich genauso gehabt: die Fontinformationen gehen verloren und müsen neu eingegeben werden. Lästig. Man kann beim Neuerstellen von Text übrigens irgendwie mit der Maus steuern, ob ein Textelement von vornherein ein Fließtext wird oder nicht, es geht irgendwie darum, ob man mit der Maus zieht oder klickt oder doppelklickt, aber ich kann mich nicht genau erinnern.

Soweit ich bisher rausbekommen habe, sind diese Textbestandteile das einzige Problem, das in Wiki nicht richtig gehandhabt wird. Das heißt: Fließtext und an Pfade gebundener Text (d.h. wenn du zum Beispiel Text entlang einer Kurve ausrichten willst, das funktioniert auch nicht). Alles andere scheint problemlos zu funktionieren.

Ich hab Inkscape aber auch noch nicht schrecklich oft benutzt. Hab mal ein paar Landkarten damit gemacht (unter meinem Namen auf Commons). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hi future perfect, ich hab das nun so geändert, wie du es mir vorgeschlagen hast und habe es auch als neuere datei hochgeladen, aber nun ist weder das alte noch das neue svg bild in den commons, bei mir wird unter contributions auch keine aktion angezeigt und auf der seite zum bild ist nur das vektorsymbolbildchen zu sehen. was lief falsch? grüße, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Du hast versehentlich die falsche Datei hochgeladen. Was da jetzt ist, ist keine svg-Datei, sondern ein OpenOffice-Spreadsheet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

hi, bleibt auch bei der neuen datei fast das selbe. nun wird zwar die schrift angezeigt, aber bei weitem nicht das ganze bildfeld. merkwürdiges svg format, wenn wiki damit nicht umgehen kann ;). grüße, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 17:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wenn du den Image-Link als "thumb" mit Größenangabe formatierst, scheint's jetzt aber zu klappen. Anderenfalls stellt Wiki das Bild einfach im riesigen Maßstab dar. Oder meinst du, dass das Bild noch weiter nach rechts reichen sollte, über den Rand hinaus? Dazu musst du in Inkscape wahrscheinlich die Seitengröße anpassen. Die Seitengröße in Inkscape ist das, was hier hinterher als dargestellte Bildfläche erscheint. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jetzt besser? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

jau, was hast du gemacht? allerdings sieht das bei mir in den vorschaugrößen so aus, als wenn die prozentangaben eine andere schriftart haben und die gestrichelten linien unter "16:9" sind nicht proportionsmässig dort, wo die sein sollten, was aber beides nicht sooo schlimm ist. aber wie hast du das gemacht? grüße, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Die Bildobjekte alle zusammen zu einem Objekt gruppiert (Ctr-G), dessen Größe in Pixeln notiert, und dann unter Datei-Dokumenteigenschaften die Seitengröße genau auf den passenden Wert eingestellt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Delete my images since your stalking me. Ashkani 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually called "checking", not "stalking". A.k.a "tidying up". But I'll gladly oblige. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :) I'll gladly check your contributions or tidy them up. So what constitutes stalking are you going to clarify that for me too :-D Ashkani 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure. Though I thought what with your excellent command of policy you might have found that out yourself already. Go check Wikipedia:Harassment#Types of harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So sind Sie ein Checkuser Protokollführer oder etwas. Ich bin keine Socke von ParthianShot. Ashkani 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not involved with checkuser, I'm just a normal admin like any other. I just happened to see that thread on Dmcdevit's page. I play whack-a-mole from time to time too. I don't think you look very "Parthian-", not so sure about the "-Shot" part though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay than I don't understand what the hell you are talking about, anyway whatever I'm done here. Ashkani 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think it is what you meant but just FYI "Ashkani" refers to Parthia. The Behnam 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashkani is also a name.... Ashkani 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell these users to back off? as far as I see its rubbish Propaganda aimed at Greeks, its soap boxing creating new theories for deniers. [24] Ashkani 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What I can see is that both you and Laertes are edit-warring unproductively. He at least has something from a relatively decent source there; if you think it is inappropriate then it's your responsibility to take it to talk, before you make repeated reverts over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, as I said, I don't like to take action on behalf of an account about whose legitimacy I have serious doubts. If you are a legitimate alternate account for a good reason, please contact somebody and declare who you are. You can e-mail me, fully confidentially of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends do you have Gmail Talk? Ashkani 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, but e-mail will be handled confidentially. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ich verlasse lieber diese Leute ärgern mich, seines nicht gutes, Baris Stiele mich niemand zu bleiben, macht irgendetwas. Ich weiß, dass Sie sich freuen werden, wenn die Zeit kommt. .... Ashkani 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Dear FPaS, I made mistakenly a revert at Image:Murat_Karayalcin.jpg. Is it possible to make Undo my last edit.(I am afraid to make a second mistake there).Regards.Must.^{T C} 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between your latest version and the one before that. Your edit doesn't seem to have damaged anything. Or has it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know; how the version before my edit is. Another point; a user had changed copyright position from fair use to free, without reload new version or without obtained a new permission from anywhere. Is it allowable??Must.^{T C} 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bombshell is back at Archaic Dutch declension

Hello Future Perfect. Recently you gave Bombshell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a 7-day block.

He is back now, at Archaic Dutch declension, making yet more controversial edits, this time using the IP 86.39.64.72 (talk · contribs):

Technically this may not be block evasion, because he started using the IP after his 7 days were up, but it does look like continued disruption. You might want to think if you want to do anything more.

The same IP also defended himself on the Talk page. I added an attribution of his unsigned comment, but didn't revert his edits to the article because I don't know any Dutch.

Somebody who knows what they are doing should probably revert all the IPs edits. EdJohnston 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shapur I

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise - With regard to the above article, I am going to add this sence to the article, which is being referenced and no copyvio involved. Any objection?

Shapur I (Persian شاپور اول), son of Ardashir I (226–241), was King of Persia from 241 to 272. His mother was Lady Myrôd, an Arsacid princess.

← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems okay, for all I can see. Nothing wrong about quoting Iranica. As for the CAIS website, there seem to have been some well-founded objections against copyright vios not just from that website, but on that website. I had a quick look at it and it seems indeed there's quite a bit of questionable material out there. We have a policy of never linking to websites that host copyvio material, so I'd advise it would be best to avoid references to CAIS altogether, regardless of the reliability of any one page of that site. Basically, anything held by CAIS is "tainted" by the copyvios that site is hosting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have no problem with that. Regards ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Many I add the reason for FullStop adherence of CAIS, is not because of what you have mentioned above, but it is due to the fact that CAIS website contains many article about conversion to Zoroastrians, and their founders are promoting such a conversion in which FullStop as a member of Indian-Zoroastrian-Orthodoxy group is considering such action as heresy. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 09:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cretan Turks - again

Despite the clear consensus that was established and the numerous sources that were provided, blind reverts continue to take place [25]. I'm not going to revert and I'm certainly not going to start another discussion, after all, last time I tried it I was only talking to myself and Macrakis. I'll wait a few days and if nothing happens I will list the article under AfD. Miskin 11:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why do you give me warning? Because I want NPOV in an article? In the Illyrians article I did really revert vandalism. The anonymous user reverted several of my edits. Anonymous removed something which was sourced and discussed. So please stop abusing your admin privileges --Noah30 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what wp:vandalism is about. Miskin 18:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood.--Noah30 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: AN/I

My beacon of sanity. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

T C Boyle book images

Hi,

I uploaded several other T. C. Boyle book covers. You may want to mark all of them for deletion as they all have the same explanation. I don't know what to add to make them legitimate for fair use, so it's best to get rid of them.

If you have an example of what is acceptable, I would be happy to try to add similar text to the images I uploaded.

Thanks. Skumarla 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistrian issues

Hi, Sunrise. I answered at your comments in Talk:Transnistrian Supreme Soviet. Is nnot clear for me the situation with youtube: at Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_YouTube.2C_Google_Video.2C_and_similar_sites is stated that there is no ban for linking at youtube, however you removed such a link in Transnistria article. Which is in fact Wikipedia policy: we assume that youtube is guilty of copyvio and we don't link at it untill we have clear proofs that no copyvio occured, or we assume good faith and we can link at youtube until we have proofs that in a particular case occured a copyvio? Anyhow, Wikipedia server is not hosting a youtube video, how can be Wikipedia be responsible for possible youtube copyvio? We are linking to a lot of newspaper articles which are copyrighted, but as long we are not copying those articles in Wikipedia my understanding is that is nothing wrong with it. Why is not the same principle applyed for video?--MariusM 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I my memory of what the state of affairs is with youtube failed me here - I really thought we had an all-out prohibition. There was a huge debate over this at Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube, and it resulted in some kind of stalemate. But even if there is no complete prohibition of youtube links, we have to check on the copyright status of each file. So then, if those videos were put up on youtube legally by their copyright owners, i.e. the TV station, it would be okay. But since they were apparently uploaded there by some private guy, they are a copyvio by youtube, and we do not link to those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

sprotect

Thanks for the help, I'll keep it sprotected until I get some free time (i.e. after May 6th). Cheers! yandman 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren

Hi, Sunrise. As I saw you wanted to "arbitrate" disputes regarding Transnistria, see this edit of Buffadren, with misleading edit summary "agreed on talk". It wasn't agreed to remove the paragraph "According to official PMR data, only 15 members of the parliament out of 43 were born on the territory of Transnistria (12 in Transnistria proper, 3 in Bessarabian area of Bender-Chiţcani which is controlled by Transnistria), 4 were born in Bessarabia, part never claimed by Transnistria, 9 were born in the Russian Federation, 8 in Ukraine, 2 in Kazakhstan, 1 in Germany, 1 in Belarus, and 3 did not declare it.PMR Supreme Concil: Members of Parliament" (on contrary - see archived discussions from October 2006: [26], [27], [28]), it wasn't agreed to rephrase "Election results are considered suspicious" in "Election results in the past were considered suspicious" and it was never agreed to accept at face value the claim of "Tiraspol Times" about unionist caracther of new Social Democratic party (the caractherization of the leader Andrey Safonov, as "former separatist leader" was also removed). He repeated the same changes and some more in this edit, with an other misleading edit summary "revert mysef". Is difficult for me to assume good faith for Buffadren.--MariusM 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, I'm not planning to "arbitrate" disputes, I'm just overseeing editwarring behaviour. (The matter about the copyvio links was just on the side.) - I must admit, I too had wondered about those edits and about the edit summaries, but I didn't find time yesterday to investigate to what degree those edits constituted reverts or otherwise disruptive elements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I don't see the relevance of his vandalism at Ann Althouse, except to the extent that (a) that's how the violation came to my attention, and (b) I'm unwilling to presume good faith WRT him/her. That matter was settled by other administration action an hour before I reported the minor edit abuse, and since the minor edit point is, by definition, procedural, even if the dispute weren't settled, it wouldn't have made any impact on the editing dispute, except that his edits would have to be properly labeled. So what's the relevance? Does it change his/her edit history, which I thought everyone had agreed violated the minor edit criterion?

As regards the thread at ANI, I think you're being unreasonable. Several admins are being verbally abusive and accusing me of misconduct, despite the fact that so far as I can tell, I've violated no WP policy and did nothing improper. I'm just defending myself - from a point that you raised, come to think of it. If it's getting disruptive, why not communicate that point to User:AKMask et al, and ask them why they can't just explain what my "mistake" was in terms that make any sense at all and conform to AGF? I'm happy to take the argument to another forum, but you're asking me to take the last punch despite the fact that no one has yet explained or cited any WP policy why I shouldn't have used a tag that clearly applied to the conduct at issue by the terms of WP:WARN.Simon Dodd 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by R9tgokunks

I began discussion, but User:R9tgokunks further restored his version. I improved article (together with User:Xlkce and User:Mareklug) and he further restored his version. This user still leads editorial wars (of all users). Temporary blockades do not help. This account was put to such behaviours, so ask about blocking this user (permanently). LUCPOL 10:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks

He continues with edit warring on several other articles [29], as soon as his block expired he starts again. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

I dont' want any discussion with aggressive troll (already blocked). The wikilink is perfectly valid. `'mikka 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria article

Hello, I've noticed you are working in solving the problems of the article Transnistria. I am the one who entered the {{POV}} template; I did it after one of my edits was reverted under arguments I don't find appropriate. I'll partly present my view:

• The definition Transnistria is a de facto independent unrecognised republic is unacceptable. Among others, de facto suggests Transnistria is not what the international community states it is. Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Transnistria as a secessionist territory [30].
• The second paragraph was added by User:Ştefan44(Mauco) and sounds to me like a sophism: My cat functions like a human being, having one mouth, two ears, one nose, a heart and a brain.
• The paragraph I've added to the intro is translated from a verdict issued by the European Court of Human Rights.
• I don't think Transnistria should be called in the info-box republic.
• The current names chapter is pushing the name Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública; I replaced it with a neutral one.
• At referendum section, I think it is better to state first that the referendum was controversial, and second the outcome; otherwise the reader would form an opinion upon numbers which may be wrong.
• I've modified Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute chapter. For example the phrase "However, the Moldovan/Ukrainian block remains in place, and holds up progress in status settlement negotiations between the sides." suggests that Ukrainian block should be lifted. I've also removed "Cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia in response"; if we enter it, we should also enter the Moldovan side of the story: Transnistrian authorities did not honor the agreement they had with Moldova and Transnistrian authorities claim Transnistria looses from these regulations more than it's GDP...
• At history chapter, my edit is just a revert of Mauco's edits
• The current version of Human Rights is biased; for example, after it is presented the case of Ilie Ilascu (according to European Court of Human Rights, the authorities have broken his right of freedom and safety; also, the treatment he suffered is qualified as torture[31]), the following text: "In 1999, Transnistria banned the death penalty for all crimes. The maximum sentence for any crime is now 25 years in prison." is misleading.
• The inclusion of the Gallery was not agreed[32]

Maybe you could provide a third opinion and re-introduce the good parts of my editDl.goe 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

P.S. I've noticed there was a discussion about links to youtube [33]. I don't think it is wrong to have a link to youtube. Youtube is not an ilegal site; if the author of the movie doesn't like their presence on internet, they can complain to Youtube; they have no reason to trouble us. I've entered links to Youtube at The Three Tenors, and, by searching with google, I found many(812) results for youtube, most of them external links, like:[Jason Manford](6th external link). Maybe we should ask another editors, or a jurist about it.Dl.goe 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I really have little intention of getting involved in the content negotiations on that article - except for my brief intervention on the Tiraspol Times article I'm currently just overseeing the situation to stop the edit-warring. I do hope questions about content will at some time again be able to be discussed in peace, but I'm very much afraid that will only happen once the single-purpose propaganda accounts on both sides are banned for good. -- As for the google links, I've made my position clear enough. There may not be a general policy of never linking to youtube, but there very definitely is a policy of not linking to copyvios. We don't link to items on youtube that any reasonable observer must conclude are likely copyvios. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, such content disputes, are the reason for edit-warring...

Regarding Youtube links, I've asked the oppinion of User:Thw1309. Dl.goe 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You were right about Youtube links.Dl.goe 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Transnistrian protection

Hey. Yet another revert war was erupting, so I protected the page. Feel free to unprotect it early or do whatever. I need a few days break from constantly being the target of political discrimination on the talk page. Hopefuly, another admin will pick up the slack in the interim. G'luck. El_C 09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Banning Of Ariana310

Hello Future,

i want to ask you to ban Ariana310 who is deleting and changing informations in Afghanistan article. I added some new informations about Afghans and the middle age Afghanistan whcih are written in Baburnama and Timurnama and he is deleting them for hiding informations. Please handle this.

thanks you, guten Tag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tajik-Professor (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Could...

...this qualify as a threat or something? :-) Oh, btw, your el-3 (of 5) times 164 equals 98, which isn't that bad! (yeah I know that the results were evident, but shhhh!) NikoSilver 11:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And PS I always thought you were almost el-5, so you better correct it to at least el-4. Frequency is the key to immortality! NikoSilver 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! It gets better and better! Look when the study was carried out (bottom), then add 9 months! NikoSilver 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link.

Thank you.--Yannismarou 19:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Insult and Personal Attacks

Hello! A newly registered user, User:Tajik-Professor, started editing the Afghanistan article and other Afghan & Persian related articles since April 25. I reverted his edits in Afghanistan article because:

• they were redundant (already mentioned in other paragraphs)
• incorrect, un-sourced and unreferenced
• he inserted the sentences between other sentences breaking the Reference from the referred sentence
• inappropriate tone and writing style e.g. writing "God Knows", "Do not call them", etc.

In some other articles, like Samanid dynasty, Ghurids and others, I did not revert his edits. I just copy-edited his statements. But he came and left a message in my talk page (here), making personal attacks, insults and accusations. User:Riana, an administrator, gave him a warming and informed him of wikipedia guidelines, and I wrote him the reasons for which I reverted his edits (here). But he again continued his personal attacks in my talk page.

So I informed you if you can do anything with him. In Afghanistan article, he did not discuss his newly added text in talk page. I already reverted his edits twice, and I cannot do it further. User:Tajik is on a break now and it is only me for watching the Afghanistan related articles. He is messing up and making personal attacks/insults in other articles, for example in Talk:Pashtun people in the last two sections. Thank you.Ariana310 09:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

oops

That was my error. Sorry, and thanks for fixing the link. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I was thinking tha ti had made a mistake with the link, when in actuality you have added a non-English link to the article. I don't think we can do that in the English-language wiki. Am I incorrect in that? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing wrong with having links to non-English sources, if the source is relevant to the article. It's somewhere in WP:ATT or one of its source pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me check it out. If I am wrong, i will revert myself, and save you the trouble. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I checked here and here. I think it says we use the English language translation. There isn't really a reason to have the original language version in the article. I know that you disagree with the application of the sic, and consider it ugly, but the fault is either of the translatior or of the reviewer. Either way, we aren't about the truth of the quote, we are about the verifiability of the data. I did point out the rather different definitions of the two words in the Discussion page of the article, which I thought reasonably demonstrated that either the translator or the reviewer used the wrong word. The use of sic addresses either case. I hope that explains my point of view in the matter. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here i was, being pleasant and polite while taking the time to carefully explain my point of view, and you go and accuse me of ownership issues and being a know-it-all. In what world is that AGF or civil? I took the time to point out not one but two sets of definitions that clearly indicated the word used was incorrect. I wasn't insisting on discussing it further; it's called being polite. When i don't know something, I shut up. When I do, I pipe up. Having a degree in English kinda means that I know from whence I speak. As for edit-warring, it usually takes two to make that sort of thing happen. Perhaps following your own friendly words of advice might work wonders as well.

You say that the original Greek article was translated incorrectly, and that the metaphors used are different in other countries. That may very well be true. However, this is the English language Wiki, which means that stuff translated into English gets more weight than, say, stuff that might be better suited to the Greek Wiki. I don't have any reason to think you would lie about the Greek translator being wrong, but frankly, no other newspaper or reliable source has stepped up and said - 'hey, the translator got it wrong'. Not even int he Greek press. Not even the reviewer. So, what you are saying is that we should rely upon your interpretation/translation of the article. If you read either of those sources I was polite enough to provide as basis, you would have seen that secondary sources of translation trump primary sources of wiki editoral translation. It's Wikipedia's rule, not mine. If you have an issue with it, you can take it to the Village Pump and lobby for a different standard. For someone with a self-admittedly less than fluent knowledge of the Greek language, it might be considered reckless for you to consider a directly (and not second-hand) translated newspaper article "problematic, confusing" or "dubious". I utterly disagree with this assertion. The article appears to be fairly clear, save for the incorrect word use. And let's simply face the fact that for the English language, it is the wrong word to use. You may not choose to accept that, but there are too many English dictionary entries that agree with my assertion. I have sourced my objections.

As well, I considered your edit problematic in that you read more into the statements than were actually stated in the cited (translated article), to whit: "Film critic Dimitris Danikas has suggested that the film portrays Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," and that it appeals to racist instincts in Europe and America". That is not what the article says, and neither 'stoke' or 'stroke' makes it such.

I disagree as well with your assertion that the inclusion of a foreign language link is "all the more useful". I consider myself a fairly well-read individual, and I haven't spoken Greek since high school, alongside Latin. I am not so sure that the average reader or scholar is going to find the benefit that you seem to think the original article in Greek is going to impart. You might want to to read those links I courteously provided to you before; a translation is not a "second-hand" quotation, and while the intended semantical barb is not lost on me, it is inappropriate for the purposes of this discussion.

Lastly, you will note that I have still been polite to you, whereas good yet harsh editors like ThuranX would have editorially torn you to shreds for being uncivil and calling them a moron. I don't mind having a civil discussion withyou regarding the mertis of this or that. I can disagree with you without being a fool, and you can disagree with me without me considering you a petulant simpleton. That said, if you write me another nasty little post like you did here, that exchange of ideas will come to a screeching halt. I won't deal with rude folk on my Talk page. I hope you understand that, and adapt your behavior accordingly when discussing matters with me. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Aromanians

I was surprised to see that you restored the a-romanus 'not roman' theory to the Aromanians article. This is indeed sourced, but is it a "reliable" source? --Macrakis 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I? Ooops, that was unintentional. I hadn't scrolled down far enough through the diff, it seems, only saw the top bit about the Britannica quote. I was somewhat mechanically reverting the previous anon, who was Bonaparte on an open proxy. Bogdan has now taken care of the text, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, telios asxeto tora, but why aren't you an admin? I've heard it said we are in need of a few good new ones. Ever thought of becoming one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it, to tell you the truth. What are the pros and cons? --Macrakis 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, difficult to say. The pros are you get all that incredible Power, and you get to do such exciting tasks as deleting a couple hundred images in one evening, or blocking your best friends for edit-warring. The cons are it tends to somewhat detract from article writing. But sometimes the tools just come in handy, even if you use it only for an occasional article move or to protect your favourite article from the latest vandal attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet

I noticed that the Copa Airlines site, although blocked, has been vandalized with incorrect information by a user called Edcoan. In one of the discussion board, he has identified himself as a "friend" of the blocked user Cpzphantom. He is contributing the same mistaken information and point of view statements. Can this be investigated?--Schonbrunn 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User:165.234.104.4 = sock puppet by User:R9tgokunks

Yes, this is sock puppet from R9tgokunks. This was uncovered already several months ago: [34], [35], [36], [37] (etc). LUCPOL 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Hellenism

The article is pure original research and I have already mentioned my view on the discussion board, but because the article is so irrelevent, no one actually wants to have a discussion. I believe that in its current state, it is a big pile of poo and is better off as a stub. Some other users want it kept the way it is. If a get a review committee there, they would agree that it is OR, but I don't want to waste my time and I don't want to have a useless edit war. Can you help out? Guy Montag 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Massacre in Peleponnese

Sorry but what you're doing can be considered as a case of vandalism, i guess. I prepared the article myself compare it with any other previous article you will also notice that..If you bother to look into the talk page of Greek War of Independence i even provided a scanned version of one page from the author William St. Clair, upon the insistence of some Greek users that i made up myself these quotations..If using properly cited quotations would be considered as "copyright infringement" then the entire wikipedia has to be deleted.. Btw, i used some, only some, of the quotations that Mccharty used in his book, but then i can access tomorrow the original copies and post them from the first hand sources, what would that change? i already have in my hand William St.Clair's book "William St. Clair, That Greece Might Still Be Free The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, Oxford University Press London 1972 ISBN 0192151940 ", all the quotation that i took from there was mine, without any other intermediaries..Regards--laertes d 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I can't see deleted pages, it is a copy of what was deleted here? NikoSilver 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for digging that one out. It's in fact similar but not identical. That old page was a simple copy-and-paste job from here. Laertes' new page seems to be closer to the ultimate source, the book by McCarthy. Some of the quotes and bits are identical though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with being bits and quotes are being identical? If that site that youre mentionning make reference to the book that i now happen to hold in my hands is that my fault?(William St. Clair's book, as ia sent a scanned version of the page) btw, the article found in that site is written by a turkish fellow , i dont know remember the name, thats not a copy of Mccharty. In fact their quotations are absolutely different from that of Mccharty..

I didnt make any quotation from Mccharty himself i only took some parts of the quotations he made from other historians and i cant see anything problematic with that. As i said i can access proper sources by tomorrow, putting McCharty aside.. --laertes d 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry it will occupy some place but then can be removed after being seen, i uploaded McCarthy page, as i said i only made quotations to the quotations he made not to his own writing and i can access to original copies, like Finlay's and Alison Phillip's book. i dont think there is any problem of "copyright infringement" and virtually every single non-greek historian mentions the occurence of these massacres but yet there is not any article about the subject. Adn McCarthy doeant use William St. Clair, Barbara Jelavich or jewish virtual library which are wiped out with the general deletion of the article.As you proposed, i want a third party opinion on the issue as well..--[User:Laertes d|laertes d]] 07:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Source	Laertes D
The Greek revolution against the Ottoman Empire began in March of 1821 with the murder of ...(McC.)	The Greek revolution against the Ottoman Empire began in March of 1821 with the massacres of ...
The patriotic cry of the revolution, proclaimed by the Greek Archbishop Germanos, was "Peace to the Christians! Respect to the Consuls! Death to the Turks!" (McC.)	The war cry of the revolution, proclaimed by the Greek Archbishop Germanos, was "Peace to the Christians! Respect to the Consuls! Death to the Turks!"
The bishops and priests exhorted their parishioners to exterminate the infidel Moslems (St.C.)	The bishops and priests exhorted their parishioners to exterminate infidel Moslems
Similar events had taken place in primarily Greek Orthodox Romania, where Greek rebels under Alexander Ypsilantes attempted to begin a revolt against the Ottomans [...] Ypsilantes and his supporters took Galatz and Yassy. In both places, "Turks of every rank..." (McC.)	Similar events had taken place in Greek Orthodox Romania, where Greek rebels under Ypsilantes attempted to begin a revolt against the Ottomans. Ypsilantes and his supporters took Galatz and Yassy, in both places, "Turks of every rank..."
Entire Turkish populations of cities and towns were collected and marched out of town to convenient places, where they were slaughtered (McC.)	Entire Turkish populations of cities and towns were collected and marched out of town to convenient places, where they were slaughtered
the whole country was overrun by bands of armed men killing and plundering. (St.C.)	the whole country was overrun by armed men killing and plundering.
By supporting the Ottoman Empire, the Jews curried disfavor with the Christian Orthodox Greeks. In 1821-1829, during the Greek War of Independence, thousands of Jews were massacred alongside the Ottoman Turks. The Jewish communities of Mistras, Tripolis, Kalamata and Patras were completely destroyed. A few survivors moved north to areas still under Ottoman rule. (J.V.L.)	According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews curried disfavour with the Christian Orthodox Greeks by supporting the Ottoman Empire and during the Greek War of Independence, thousands of Jews were massacred alongside the Ottoman Turks by the Greek rebels and the Jewish communities of Mistras, Tripolis, Kalamata and Patras were completely destroyed. A few survivors moved north to areas still under Ottoman rule.

Etcetera. I'd probably find more of the kind if you'd uploaded also the next page from McCarthy, or the relevant passages from the other authors. I stand by my assessment that this is close enough to count as plagiarism/copyvio. But feel free to go to WP:DRV, I won't object if you can convince another admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That really gets boring, i didnt take any quotation from the other page.. By your interesting standarts of "copyright infringement" we have to delete entire wikipedia. I can give reference to another work as long as i cited them, this is not a copyright infringement.. You asked for relevant pages form St. clair right have it. Image:St.clair12.jpg --laertes d 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep adding these things, good, they only make the article reliable and still not violating copyright infringement since i can include them as long as i cited the sources properly..--laertes d 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont make me laugh please, by these standarts more than half of the wikipedia should be deleted then. Most of what you wrote was given with citation marks with verifiable and reliable sources..There is nothing unacademical with such quotations..you may have crtiticization to some parts of the article but then it is not a reason for deleting the entire article..--laertes d 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in Peloponnese

Hey could you look at this article? You deleted it 2 days ago as a copyvio and it's back, I can't tell what it's copied from though. Thanks. --W.marsh 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There's now an incomplete AfD listing by Politis to complicate things further. Please give it a glance. NikoSilver 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD

Regarding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (2nd nomination), I still believe that there were not enough opinions gathered to determine the community consensus on this, though MfD has no quorom requirements, we usually get more contributors on a closure (unless it's a snowball). To that end, I don't think you should have to deal with the DRV process on this either, (and using my crystall ball it has a chance of being a send to mfd result) so I've reopened the debate, and extended it for another week. I hope this is satisfactory for you. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sunrise. I am really sorry if you had indigestion with your hat, but I think you are taking the issue too personally. There are other more important things in Wikipedia than my sandbox.--MariusM 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, Sunrise, did you actually forget to vote on it yourself? :-/ --Illythr 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, I made the nomination, didn't I? That counts automatically as a delete vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I sorta compared it with the previous vote, sorry. --Illythr 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: I've asked you peace see edit summary but you refused and, as I told, I believe you are taking all issues too personally. Blocking me for only one edit/day, insistence in the deletion of my sandbox (I understood the nomination, but not the relisting, after you told that closing admin should decide), blocking EvilAlex for what I believe was a legitimate edit (should we repeat for each new user arguments told long time ago about intro, which are in archived debates?) are not good actions in my opinion. I like people with sense of humour, you have it, you should use it more often. You jump too quickly at conclusions and act impulsively. Also, I believe that regarding Transnistria, you have a lack of knowledge, it will take some time until you will be able to understand all issues (if you will be willing to spend time on this subject).--MariusM 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres during greek war of independence

future i expect you to come and stop vandalisms in the newly formed article by Alexius. hectorian in the first five minutes of the article already violated three revert rule..Wasnt that what youre asking for, a separete arrticle for the whole issue of massacres?--laertes d 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)