User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 26

Further problems with Collect's edits

After you closed the appeal at WP:AE, Collect made the following edits after his formal warning: [1][2] Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably not the best idea to revert him and create the impression you are now following his edits. Please try to give it a rest too. Let him talk; as long as he is not again spewing accusations against you, there's no problem with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both pages are on my watchlist, for reasons unconnected with Collect. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page protection

has been raised at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Saw it and was going to respond there. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus

Hey; Maunus wants his wikibreak to be over (really; email).

• Diff of User:Maunus/vector.js

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Polytonic

Template:Polytonic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Hi Future Perfect, kind of a dull issue, but you've posted a few times on the talk page in the past and edit very often in the template's primary usage areas, so I drop this notification here. All best — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 03:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, it's appreciated. I've asked to keep it, just in order to keep old revisions of pages readable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And I think you make a good point, though my understanding of the software might be poor. I'm working on substituting it from current revisions, though I hate to edit user and talk spaces. But am I wrong that the template will render with each page load and thus simply give lang + grc even for old revisions? If I'm wrong,[Whoa! it's late and that's a moronic question! ... the very point of your keep !vote.] Can you see my reply to your !vote and maybe give the standard usage note for a template that shouldn't be used or point me toward an example? I've never encountered one. Thanks. And, by the way, I've seen you around and appreciate the work you've done for Greek and related topics. Best — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus

The above barnstar conversation is hilarious btw. Although Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) is ancient history, could you have a quick look at Talk:Kioneli.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lower Metzenseifen

I protest the deletion of Lower Metzenseifen. The older site Medzev is entitled with a slovak name for a well-known settlement in the Cleveland area. You should really explain yourself and provide academic sources for making changes like this. Just because an article has an older creation date, does not make it more accurate. There is a reason that this site was under protection. You should really look into it. Thanks Agentxp22 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is standard site policy. Article histories must be kept together. If you feel the contents of the Medzev article would be better placed at the Lower Metzenseifen location, then the only technically correct solution under our site policies is to propose a move of the page (i.e. with all its old revisions) to that new location. You don't just go and write the article afresh at the new location you prefer. Make that proposal, see if you can get consensus for it, and if you do, somebody will be happy to move the page for you. In the meantime, you are quite welcome to copy whatever is useful of your new text content over from the Metzsenseifen pages into the Medzev pages. I didn't in fact "delete" it; it's still accessible if you click on Lower Metzenseifen, then on the small "redirected from" link just below the Medzev page title, and then on the "view history" link in the top bar. Let me assure you that I have no dog in this fight and I don't intend to express any opinion on the respective merits of the page titles at all; this is purely an administrative policy thing. Please do not continue to edit-war or move-war over it, because you might end up blocked from editing. This place is run by consensus, and editors are usually quite willing to listen to well-presented move proposals if they are based on good arguments, facts and policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Athough I still think that the site is falsely named for the english database, I think given the stubbornness of both parties involved in this "war" as you call it, it is in our best interest to cooperate. I think a redirect is a nice compromise. The many Americans who emigrated from Metzenseifen will no doubt only know it by that name. The redirect will at least allow this site to be found when they search for Metzenseifen (I don't know who in the world would search for Medzev or Vyšný Medzev. As for the information contained on Lower Metzenseifen, I will incorporate that into the Medzev site. Agentxp22 (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Listen

Why the community wants to pretend that certain users are banned when in fact they're editing alongside us is beyond me. Allowing User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg and other past banned users to freely contribute and allow their edits to stay not only encourage them to continue to evade said ban, but it further asserts the community's two-faced hypocritical bullshit that it regularly engages in. --MuZemike 15:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I totally agree, and in fact I've just removed a few more junk talkpage creations by the latest sock. But I disagree with your method of WP:POINT violations in protesting against the nonsense. Really, we have the WP:POINT rule for a reason; it was made to stop exactly the type of behaviour you're engaging in here, so please stop that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, if I was a little more spiteful, I would unblock that user myself and let the community deal with it. However, citing said comment I made above, they would have my head on a stick. --MuZemike 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And while I don't know how pretty your head is, I'm concerned it wouldn't be a pretty sight then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The point that you're trying to make, though, is that the person concerned does edit, blithely and without suffering any apparent effect from the community ushering the person out of the door. So unblocking an old account wouldn't give the community anything to deal with, that isn't already here. So you wouldn't achieve anything concrete with such an action except your name on a block log. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• your threat

I strongly recommend not doing that. It won't help, and it'll turn the problem into a you-versus-MuZemike arbitration case; which is not, and should not be, the actual problem at all. Uncle G (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Bah, no, I don't think MuZ and I are gonna take this to the 'trators. We'll probably just exchange fishes of various sizes and shapes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Start walking the walk

In this Arbitration Request [3] you used the following words "Edit-warring a section with the glaringly judgmental title "Political Manipulations and Falsification of History in Azerbaijan" into a contentious article displays reckless disregard to the requirements of NPOV and is, as such, sanctionable behaviour." You said this about edits made to the Khojaly Massacre article. I now challenge you to help to take this article away from the revert-ridden, edit warring, "partisan mud-fest" that exists there, and that you do it by being involved in editing it. Or are you only interested in sanctioning editors who work on contentious articles? As you can see, I have been bold and made some cuts to that article (removng some of its propagandistic elements) that will probably stir up a hornets' nest. I would like either support for my aims or an explanation why my edit was wrong. Meowy 02:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no content interest in that article, so no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as I though - all talk no walk. A typical administrator. Meowy 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You had enough content interest several days ago to be able to describe an edit as having a "glaringly judgmental title". It seems that you have plenty of "content interest" when it gives you an excuse to exercise your powers, but you have zero content interest when it concerns your responsibilities. Meowy 21:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement question

You're a regular at AE, so looking for a little advice on proceeding. The Muhammad Arbcom has a section for Discretionary sanctions, which I take to mean an authorization for sanctioning general disruption in the topic area by parties to the case after the case is closed. Is that a generally correct interpretation? I'm seeing a person involved in that Arbcom (I was a party as well, on the other side of the debate) basiucally not being very accepting of the decision which in large part did not go in their favor. They have bene in effect continuing the same argument that led to the filing in the first place as well as apologizing to new editors on behalf of the project that the rest of us are, in so many words, a bunch of partisan keep-the-images-for-the-hell-of-it doing it on purpose. I was starting an AE filing against this person but got to the part about prior warnings. Would something like this go to AN/I first, and if the consensus is that the behavior is bad enough for a warning, use that finding for AE (the "warned previously" part) if this stuff happens again down the road? Or AE now? Tarc (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The general practice is that immediate participants to Arbcom cases don't need to get extra warnings first, as they are supposed to be aware of the decision, so I guess you could go straight to AE if you feel the need. Personally, I don't really see that posting as sanctionable – the opinion that editors such as the one he was addressing deserve an explanation or "apology" along those lines is still one a person might reasonably hold, although for the sake of keeping the peace my suggestion to Anthonycole would be to keep such responses off the article talkpage and take it to the individual user instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it more of a slap at those who chose to retain the images rather than a literal apology. This isn't the first time, he's been carping at Talk:Muhammad/images too pretty much from the moment the RfC closed. I'll give him a bit of rope for now and see how far he runs with it I guess. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Tarc initially left a message on my talkpage, so I figured I should respond I'd pretty much echo Fut.Perf., with the addendum that if you're going to leave a message for Anthonyhcole, you should probably say the same thing to Veritycheck, because Veritycheck basically did the same thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Verity's was less snarky, but the gist is the same, I agree. Between the two of them though if this backhanded criticism keeps up going forward, someone is going to snap. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I find Veritycheck's posting (if you mean the one in the same thread) completely unobjectionable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk

Please see talk here [4] re recent activity you might have been involved in Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed religion manual of style

There is now a proposed Manual of style for religion articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. I have some reason to believe that your own expertise in dealing with matters of nationalism might well be of use here, given the large number of groups out there which deal substantially with what might be called ethnoreligions. Any input you might have would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize for re uploading the Albert Einstein High School file,I was simply trying to make the article better by providing a picture and in the process I told a false statement,I'm sorry but I will still like to upload the picture.It will be helpful if you told me how to do it the right way.

There is no right way. The only right way is to not use it. If you want a photograph of the school, you must go and take one yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Namuslu sock

Speaking of Namuslu socks... I so far haven't had the energy to go after his Türbanistan (talk · contribs), but that's obviously him. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, maybe we should send him on a trip to Çorabistan too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just been accused of being a sockpuppet and I don't know what to do

After you wrote on my wall an editor called User:One Night In Hackney then stated that I was a sockpuppet and has reported me for copyright violations, but I don't understand where he has got these allegations from! I have looked over the information about the sockpuppet and viewed some of his edits and they are nothing like mine, I was wondering what I would do to stop him from deleting me as if I had commited violations surely I would have been told not to but I have not? Slytherining Around32 (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've told you what to do. Fix the broken source links on any images you've uploaded before you get blocked for being a sockpuppet, since I'll be tagging any with broken links for deletion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy can you possibly give me a couple of hours grace before unblocking should CU be negative? If you look at the SPI archives you'll see Marquis has been editing from few different educational establishments, thus making checkuser possibly problematic. There's no real damage in leaving him blocked for a couple of hours longer while I create a stronger case on behavioural evidence, but as he uploaded 20+ problematic images in the 2 hours between the SPI being filed and him being blocked there's a definite downside in letting him loose before this is properly resolved. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"... no real damage in leaving him blocked for a couple of hours"? Even if he's done nothing wrong? Priceless. — JonC^ॐ 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As anyone familiar with checkuser knows, it can't be used to prove innocence (save for cases where people are in entirely different countries, and I'm sure we'd have heard the sock saying so if that was the case), so a negative checkuser wouldn't prove "he's done nothing wrong". Go troll somewhere else, since you don't know what you're talking about here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll re-phrase that: even if it can't be proved he's done something wrong? I'm glad you didn't draft the intricacies of our legal system. Anyway, carry on, I know reporting people is your forté and I'll interfere no more. — JonC^ॐ 17:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Peculiar edit

I just deleted this very peculiar deletion proposal; thought you should know. Haploidavey (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I know. That's a long-term story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My topic ban

I have complained about hounding and heckling by user:Sitush, that has resulted in discussion of my topic ban. You were the one who implemented it. You could have a look at the discussion if you please.[5] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about use of an image of a military logo

Hello again!

I am coming back to you as an authority on all things image-related - I hope you won't mind! I'm currently working on the Human Terrain System page, trying to address concerns about neutrality. The main concern raised was that the article suggested that the program was no longer active in a way that the anonymous editor who added the tag found confusing and unhelpful. I've tried to address this in the text, but I thought that an infobox would also help as it allows a 'dates' field which would make it immediately clear that the program is still active. So - long story short: I wondered if military logos/insignia - or, more specifically, the HTS logo as found here - fell into the 'fair use' category for images. There seems to be suggestion of this (e.g. here) but I'm still not conversant enough with image policy to be able to read between the lines.

Thanks in advance for your help,

Loriski (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Logos are usually considered legitimate in infoboxes about institutions, so in principle this ought to be okay. The only issue I see is: do you have reliable sourcing that this actually is this unit's logo? And if it is, where and how is it actually used? Because I can find it nowhere on the HTS's website [6], and the only places I can find it on the web are blogs and websites criticizing the program. The usual argument justifying non-free logos in infoboxes is their recognition value, but if the institution itself isn't visibly using this symbol in their outside communications, that argument would fall flat, wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't checked the sourcing of the image - just searched for the HTS logo in google images and too-hastily assumed it must be the right one as it came up several times. Will look into it, and if I can't find a reliable source will perhaps put up the infobox without an image. Thanks ever so much for the advice: really helpful, and will know what steps to take if there's a next time :) Loriski (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This photo

I made an edit on Admin Courcelles' talkpage If he is away, perhaps you can briefly look at the photo and see if the problem is minor or major. I don't know if its OK or a copyright violation...or if it needs OTRS permission? Or if the uploader is the same person noted in the camera metadata. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The standard response to such cases is to tag them with subst:{{nsdnld}} (which expands to {{di-no source no license}}. In this case there seem to be a few more problems, judging by the uploader's history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank You. I used to edit a lot at wikipedia but since 2009, I edit more at WikiCommons. I didn't think much about the image until I saw 1. no license and 2. the camera metadata. Unfortunately, many uploaders try to smuggle stolen images into WikiCommons claiming 'own work' and Admins and trusted users there only catch them through either google search for identical images or the critical camera metadata. Such is life. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Bassam Al-Thawadi photo

Hi, thanks for bringing up the notice of the photo, I'm still an amateur at uploading images here. Anyways, I have contacted Mr. Thawadi on Twitter but he has yet to reply yet, I don't think he would reply prior to the 1-week deadline before the image gets deleted. Any idea on what I should do ? Droodkin (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Don't worry about the waiting period; if you get a permission from the owner a bit later and the image has been deleted in the meantime, just let me or any other admin know and we can easily restore it any time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that solved the problem for now. Thanks! Droodkin (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You might find this interesting

I wrote here about a pair of fact/who tags that I added and which were subsequently removed by you. I take note of your removal comment, which was "not sure why we need a ref for this in the lead; it seems like just a textbook definition. Or is some detail of the wording here being contested in a way I can't see?" I actually am contesting the wording. I think there are no such actual people and the article is misleading in that it pretends that there are. I think we need to treat this as a fantasy theory of hobbyists (by which I mean no negativity, it's a fun fantasy theory after all!). One of the issues is that this plausible sounding article provides people with a basis to leak this theory into biographies of real people who, as far as I can tell, do not hold this theory at all, with the implication that perhaps they do. I don't think the current (self-styled) Duke of Anjou is campaigning to take over Versailles for himself, but one can be forgiven for thinking so, having only read Wikipedia on the matter!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I've added a comment at Talk:Legitimists too. I certainly agree the article is problematic, but I'm still not sure a "fact" tag on the verb "is" is really the best point to address the problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. So we're back to square one.

I guess we are. I submitted many photos. there are 4 in question.

first I up loaded a free image a images from the 1913 Francis Bannerman catalog, it showed a image of a surplus of U.S.M.A. sword for sale.

Then I upload 3 images from Mowbray publishing with all your paperwork the release from the owners with the correct copyright information (I still have the email). The summary is for Mowbray is mixed up with the Bannerman information. Their name was never entered into the summery, but it shows up in another images summary.1913 Francis Bannerman catalog, Please check the history of the images and it should show that someone edited it and I could not do it if i wanted to. so you will be able to tell who messed around with the summary.

I will do everything I can to get it corrected back to the way it was entered and approved by Mowbray publishing. I will also get the image you have in question released by Mowbay.

Please Let's try this again

Andy Andy2159 (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to my talk page I did not and do not know what your so upset about.

If I need to get the release for the 4th image I will. But the copyright information was changed on your side. not mine.

I sorry you are finding it hard to work with me, I'm doing my best to give you what I think you are asking for.

Maybe, we can start over. Please ask me your questions again. And I'll try to give you that you need. Please keep it simple as I do not come close to your level of the written word.

I have replied to the images talk page. Thanks for another chance. AndyAndy2159 (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

it was you who changed the copyright information on the image.

WHY, would you do that? The history change after you edited it, that is why it's messed up. You added all the information about the Francis Bannerman catalog, which has nothing to do with this photo's copyright. AndyAndy2159 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New Release Submitted

Morbary today has issued a new release to include the first 3 plus this one.

I have resubmitted the release to permission at commons.

On 6/25/2012 10:55 AM, Mowbray Publishing wrote:

>From The Ames sword Company 1829 - 1935

Page 161 cadet sword and scabbard.

page 63 U,S.M.A c 1850

page 225 item number Regulation 543

Military Regulations 542 & 543.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License

(unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a

commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs,

provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be

attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the

work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or

may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS <Stuart C. Mowbray> <service@manatarmsbooks.com>

SENDER'S AUTHORITY copyright holder

[DATE] 6/25/2012

Stuart Mowbray and I want to get the copyright and the information corrected, weather or not they are used in the article.

Andy2159 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC) AndyAndy2159 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

VRML

Looking at the history of the page, I can see that User:MuZemike unprotected the page, but after two hours you re-protected the page with any protection request.I cannot see any vandalism, edit dispute or anything else.+Even, there ares no edits between these revisions.Could you please give me any reason about protecting the page?Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is related to a long-term pattern of extremely disruptive sockpuppetry by a banned user. The log history of the page should give you a hint about what's going on, and Muzemike's log summary should make it clear that it wasn't a regular unprotection that was intended to stand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm ;/

Hi. I removed that. AGF, please. FWIW, I've no interest in extending that dialogue. And also had not looked at who hatted it. Best, (Jack) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've restored the hatting, but I've changed the hat line. Calling a sub-thread "off-topic bitching" wasn't a personal attack; it was simply saying that the sub-thread wan't constructive. Which it wasn't, since it was not directed at the specific situation on hand here in any useful way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, that was Iri's topic, not the specific event. See his last sentence. Not gonna argue it further, just sayin'. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if Iridescent actually wanted the thread to be about generic complaints about generally low moral standards, then maybe he ought to have taken it to the WP:General moral standards complaint desk from the start, dontcha think? Just saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Human nature proved right

Known Marquis IP says "our probably a sad lonely middle aged man who sits at home in the dark all day patrolling wiki as his life has been a failier, its actually laughable...whilst I am the son of a Knight Bachelor who also happens to be a French peer and lives in a multi million pound house" versus suspected Marquis sock who says "you are most likely a single, unemployed lonely little man whose world revolves around the online "experience" due to you being incapable of social interaction and of course you will claim that I am wrong, but i'm the son of a two High Court judges who are both Queens Counsels and are famous for their interpretaion of the law". Strange how the insults and self-aggrandizing are so similar isn't it? I do wish he'd make his mind up who is father (or fathers apparently) is though. Do you need me to create a more detailed behavioural case, I'm happy to do so if really needed. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I've warned him. If he doesn't strike, I will take away his pen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• I've also declined his unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest it doesn't bother me at all, people can say what they want. I was just using it as an example of people unconsciously behaving the same way no matter how much they try otherwise. He may claim not to be a sock because he's edited articles about Labour politicians as well this time, but his underlying behaviour hasn't changed as demonstrated by the similarity in the insults along with claims to be the son of someone important. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I trust the judgement of both of you here and only glanced at the CU and a couple of images to verify the problem. If I'm playing the role of "outside admin", I can tolerate him being a little pissy, but not personal attacks, regardless of who the target is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to provide more behavioural evidence if needed, but the more evidence he sees the more difficult it becomes to use it. Since previous socks focussed on images of Tory politicians, he's arguing because his current sock uploads images of Labour politicians too he can't be a sock, and things like that. Obviously that's nonsense, but the more behavioural traits he's aware of the more he'll try and hide them or diversify into other editing areas so he can say "Marquis didn't edit articles about Russian politicians" or something similar. That's why I tend to keep the evidence to the minimum generally needed when it comes to sock reports, except for really complex cases. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just a trainee at SPI but agree that is the proper way to do it. He is asking questions, I'm providing answers, which gives me a basis for comparison as well, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian vs Romanian geographic names

See this AN3 report , in case any of the issues may be familiar to you. This is mostly about place names in Transylvania. If anyone can say what the authoritative solution should be, maybe we can remind all the parties and coax them to follow it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Are they now edit-warring over two infobox(mtbih) parameters that differ only in whether an alternative name is displayed at equal size with the primary one or slightly smaller? That surely is a new dimension of lame. I don't really know if we have any definite usage guidelines or conventions about how those parameters should be used. The /doc page of the infobox(mtbih) template seems to be vague, as so often. But my guess would be that the "native name" parameter would generally be preferred for the native name in the primary/official local language, if that differs from the English one (e.g. Rome would have "native_name=Roma"), while names in regional or minority local languages would seem more fitting for the "other_name" entry. If they should be in the infobox(mtbih) at all, that is. Hasn't it been enough that we've had to edit-war about the lead sentences all the time? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am now assuming that putting Hungarian in the smaller font in the infobox has been the practice since 2007 in the Szekely towns, but I hope the editors involved will confirm this if they consider it to be an earth-shaking matter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Good example of WP:BOLD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nangaphobia. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure

I started working on that essay as I've witnessed newbies being bitten by multiple editors on sock exemption. None of my contributions referred to DS's conflict with the banned user. Anyway, that's not why I came here, does your closure mean that you wont consider it edit war if I revert and continue to turn it into the essay I was hoping it to be? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also, this was an edit conflict [7] --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

BullDozer Award

	BullDozer Award
	Hereby awarded to Future Perfect at Sunrise for Cleaning up an "ugly trainwreck "before it turned even uglier. DBigXray 11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

MfD closure

A simple message by an uninvolved editor or by anyone who felt that they were attacked by that essay would have have made me address their concern, instead of all that drama at MfD. I started that essay in good faith and never intended to harass or attack someone. Simply AGF would have worked there. --SMS ^Talk 12:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I think Fut.Perf has stretched it too far by slapping a one-week block. If anyone needs to be scrutinized, it should be those who started the whole drama. It does not take a genius to figure out how the nominator got to the essay in the first place, when he has been clearly warned before on not to follow and intimidate other users. This MfD, along with the third-time nomination of the Template:Kashmir separatist movement and a recent case of gaming of a 1RR restriction by the same user, are evidence of WP:POINTY behaviour. It's an utter, utter shame to see such a user being given loose rope continuously. I am disgusted at the way this has been handled. I think the equation is really simple; no hounding by Darkness Shines = no drama. It's a pity that those handling this issue repeatedly fall short of coming to terms with this. Mar4d (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing all you guys (both in this section and in the two above, and almost everybody in the MfD itself) are head over heels involved in this sorry cesspit of disputes, so it's easy for me to figure out how much value I should attach to your opinions. Let me just say one thing here: to first create such an attack page, and then cry "stalking!" when the victim of the attack page finds out and complains about it, is really not on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Amir.Hossein.7055

Hi, I just filed an SPI on this guy, I saw that you had done so a few times before, thought you might be interersted or be able to find more of his socks. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055 Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

removal

I actually removed it by speedy deleting. But a conversation I had with one editor made the editor actually put back and I thought he knew what he was doing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Polytonic again

This time I'm not the nominator. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_30#Template:Polytonic.  ^davidiad_.: 05:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE against PANONIAN

Hi,

Since in an ANI entry you've expressed a wish the other day to have PANONIAN sanctioned immediately, I took the pains of filing an ArbCom request against him, which you might want to take a look at (and perhaps comment on). -- CoolKoon (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

F16TopGun

Just in case you were unaware, please see this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Johannson picture

sorry that whole thing you sent me was confusing lol so why again can't that picture be used? Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is non-free. Please check out our non-free content policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine iconoclasm

I agree with your edits there. Did you notice the removers other edits? These net out to a clear net removal of content on Greek-related articles, under rather bad-tempered edit summaries. I haven't investigated further, but it might well be worth it. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I noticed that too. He has a pattern of making blanket reverts to old versions from months ago, with no attention to positive intervening edits, without explaining what it is he objects to. I now seem to remember I had noticed him edit-warring on some national naming lameness issue too, a while ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Athleek123's talk page.
Message added 06:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Athleek123 06:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Athleek123's talk page.
Message added 06:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Athleek123 06:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP territory

Shouldn't an oversight deal with Euzen's latest BLP violation Crude pro-albanian references, like Sandra Vickers, are good only for a laugh --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. He's certainly ripe for a report at WP:AE, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma SPI

Hi, in case you're interested, I've filed an SPI regarding what I suspect to be the latest Shuppiluliuma sock here [8]. As the admin most familiar with him, your insight would be particularly helpful. For the record, I am also convinced that Namuslu and Turbanistan were socks of his as well. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Gold Standard's talk page.
Message added 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gold Standard 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture removal - Eaglet Circle

Thank you for taking time reviewing the pictures on the Orlyonok article. I do not see the reason for the sudden removal of the picture of the Eaglet Circle and would like to see detailed explanation. The short line you suplied ((F7: Violates non-free use policy: obviously false tag (not the topic of the article, not object of commentary); obviously replaceable)) does not fully furnish details, as it gives multiple reasons. If it violates the non-free use policy I can supply the proof for the non-free fair use; if its not the topic of the article, by reading the article you will find that it is a picture of eaglets standing in a circle (and singing a song, as a matter of fact, see (Eaglet Circle Traditions - Tradition of Songs); if it is obviously replaceable, I already stated in the talk on my page that once I obtain the license-free variants, these WILL be replaced. Again, this article HAS ALREADY been reviewed by the administration and staff of the camp and has been approved. If this does not sound convincing enough, I can forward direct email address for the person responsible for the public relationships who can further assist you with double-checking all the permissions and legal status of anything used in the article. Thank you, EagletSam (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The image was replaceable because an alternative image of kids standing in a circle could obviously be created. It doesn't matter if you have already found one; it is enough that such an alternative is conceivable. That's the WP:NFCC#1 failure. Normally this leads to deletion after a waiting time of 48 hours, but in this case the image was additionally subject to immediate deletion per WP:CSD#F7 because it also had a blatantly false description. You claimed in your rationale that it was being used as "object of discussion". The file upload form that you used for uploading it told you exactly what that means: "the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows". This was obviously not the case here. If you are in contact with the camp administration, you are very welcome to try and get images from them with a fully free license, but without that we won't be able to use them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time explaining the rationale. I apologize for taking apart your post, but it merits some attention. "..it is enough that such an alternative is conceivable..." - I still fail to see the possible existence of a conceivable alternative being a viable basis for the sudden removal without warning. Permissions-wise, as stated (read EagletSam MyTalk), not only I have been in contact with the administration of the camp, I have already obtained the permission to use ANY pictures hosted on their site, logos, maps, etc, which I will gladly forward to the Wiki administration if need be (actually, I would much prefer Wiki and Orlyonok administration work it out directly, as I am not affiliated with Orlyonok, never worked for them, and live in the other hemisphere altogether). (FYI, I am already in the process of figuring out which photos fall within the "free" permissions; choosing the "non-free" was done out of respect for the copyrights of the official site "by default", and I am awaiting "official letter" from the administration explaining all the details of such; your actions are actually speeding up things that are planned to happen anyhow; I had to start with some kind of draft that I could present to the Orlyonok administration as a preview). But, logistics aside, I am still at loss how a genuine picture of a genuine Eaglet Circle standing while singing (and with a clearly visible Orlyonok sign, which IMHO, is one of the best pictures I could find) does not belong to the article discussing it within the Eaglet Culture section. If it does not belong within the Eaglet Circle paragraph itself and should have been moved to the Tradition of Songs section, than I would have done that, too, given some time, which I was not given. I apologize for re-using your post at the risk of being wrongly understood, but the "blatantly false description" in itself is the blatant false statement, since the photo's capture clearly read "Eaglet Circle"; if you refer to the uploaded file description, "The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such.." then it does not mean I do not try to understand what I am doing; it simply means a mistake has been made and should be corrected, which I would gladly do, given the chance you did not give me. I also see that other image in the article (the map of the camp) suddenly came under scrutiny and sense a pattern here, though, I WOULD LIKE to see some friendly and helpful discussion BEFORE anything is suddenly removed without my permission. All the links and references provided will be checked and thoroughly read. Respectfully, EagletSam (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: rmoving the logos of the individual camps within the Orlyonok - still awaiting a SOLID EXPLANATION, just like with the earlier sudden removal of the Eaglet Circle picture. This was not the "non-free image over-use", these are individual logos of the camps within the Orlyonok, officially created, officially approved. I am still at loss as to why WITHOUT WARNING stuff disappears from the article at such lightning speed and with such scant explanation. Trying hard to stay respectfully but dazed and confused EagletSam (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. Still awaiting the basis for the "conceivable alternative" and to help you out, is it in the state of the CA only? In the United States of America? Worldwide or which country in particular? What are the provisions for seeing it as the legal basis for any actions? What is the court ruling establishing it? If there were none, what is the actual internal Wiki memo stating as such? By whom and to whom it was referring (which case in particular)? Who authorized its immediate put to action and by what power (which US court and in which location)? Until these and other provisions are met, I do not legally recognize "conceivable alternative" as being a solid evidence other than being just one particular occasion for this particular case (would like to see other comparable examples, links to other articles where this worked). If these are too much to answer, I can wait.

Sorry, these are too many questions to answer all. Please understand that this kind of image patrolling is very much a routine matter; we get hundreds of images uploaded daily, and I review, and often delete, dozens of them every day. I must point you to the WP:NFC policy page, which explains these things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I respect your time and expect the same in return. I, too, a have full-time work, family, various obligations and multitude of volunteer work in addition to editing article. In no way I imply I have more work to do or trying waste your or anyone's time, but expect that this can be settled in civilized and logical matter. I have read through all the links you supplied in addition to other pages serving the point. Respectfully, EagletSam (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. I was not born in the US and grew up elsewhere, and have problems figuring out what "common sense" would be; in short, I need to be told what exactly things like "conceivable alternative" supposed to mean to an average american/canadian. While it may be obvious and simple, it is not, in my case. Thank you EagletSam (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's really much simpler than you make it sound. Somebody, for instance a staff member or visitor at the camp, could make a new photograph and publish it under a free license. As long as that is possible, we will not use a non-free alternative. I'm not sure how I could explain it any better than this; if you find this difficult to follow, I'll just have to ask you to accept that this is how the policy of this project works, and to move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger that EagletSam (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For your information

FYI : Your name has been mentioned here [9]. Tamsier (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know

That there is another user who has continually been uploading images that violate WP:NONFREE and refuses to accept their warnings and continues to do such. Thought you'd like to know. User talk:XHugoTheNerd. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation request

Could you possibly help me with a translation I need for an article that I'm writing? I'm having trouble with the following sentence: "Es entspricht jedoch dem Wunsche des Führers, dass Ihnen wegen Ihrer Abstammung keine weiteren, über die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen hinausgehenden Beschränkungen auferlegt werden." Any idea what would be a good English formulation for this sentence? The best I've been able to come up with so far is "it is the Führer's wish that no more restrictions that go further than the legal requirements should be imposed on you because of your origins". Prioryman (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you already captured it quite well. Another version might be: "It is, however, the Führer's wish that you should not be subject to any further restrictions because of your ancestry beyond those required by law." I take it you are writing about this guy here? Interesting case. If you also need the following sentence quoted in the article, I'd render that as "According to his wishes, you are also to be treated favourably in other respects." Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the article's now at Ernst Moritz Hess - do let me know what you think of it! Thanks for your help. Prioryman (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Youreallycan and block

I've left a message at YRC's talk page, and I would ask you reconsider the unblock request. He did say that he doesn't want to harass, his last post was over an hour and a half before the block, and he has actually shown a great deal of progress in his attitude and communications. For disclosure, I am his mentor and his progress can be seen at User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0 where he has voluntarily worked in articles with a self-imposed 1RR and has held to it. I personally feel that a warning would have been the better solution and I was disappointed that it wasn't tried first. Magog was within policy in blocking him, but that doesn't mean it is the best solution. That he politely claims that Magog was involved while also making it clear he will not harass shouldn't affect his unblock request, as blocking doesn't remove his right to express an opinion. If we want problem editors to fix their own problems, then we should meet them half way when they show they are trying hard to do so, and YRC has been spending a great deal of time and effort to fix his communications issues. We should not treat him as if he hasn't. Obviously, I have a bias as I'm mentoring him, but I'm not as colored by this as I am the fact that I've gotten to know YRC and I sincerely think that reconsidering and lifting the block based on his existing statements is more likely to prevent disruption, reduce frustration, and allow him to return to the good work he does here. I wouldn't blame you if you made it clear that he would be wise to extend his self-imposed 1RR to talk space, and that he should contact his mentor about correcting the issues that led to this block. What he did was dumb, but not 1 week block dumb, in my opinion. For the record, he has not contacted me or asked me to interfere in any way in this matter. Another editor pointed me to it, but I had just walked in the door and likely would have found it anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Never mind. The issue has been resolved in a positive manner for all concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion re: decorative photo

Hi, Future. I respect your experience with photo policy, so I'd like to ask if you might look at these two versions of the short article Vanessa Paradis and render an opinion as to whether four images, including three closeups of the person, and two performance shots from within five years of each other with no discernible difference in look, constitutes image(s) being used decoratively.

• 4 photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanessa_Paradis&oldid=501134798
• 3 photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanessa_Paradis&oldid=501149843

Thank you for any help in settling what's becoming an acrimonious dispute at this article. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

From the way you posed the question, I was expecting to find a really bad case of non-free image overuse, but it turns out these are actually all free photos, right? In that case, I don't think there is any hard and fast policy that tells us how many of them we should be using. It's just a matter of editorial judgment. If people want to pretty up a page with lots of attractive photographs of an admittedly hot performer, there's really no policy limit to how far they can go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul at FAC

Hello again. I just wanted to let you know, in case you were interested, that Istanbul has now been nominated for featured status. Feel free to participate in the discussion regarding its suitability at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Istanbul/archive1. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit War in the Byzantine Empire, et cetera

Everything I've written was properly cited, verifiable, not original research, and written from a neutral point of view, according to the rules. As for the so called "edit war" I've supposedly started, I assure you, not a single shot was fired. Adding three text lines in all, all of which you subsequently deleted, could barely be called editing, let alone casus belli. It so just happened that I accidentally pressed the save button and the subsequent OK buttons before I realised that there was somebody else editing simultaneously. That's all. So I think you're overreacting and that your following me and deleting everything I write is against the rules and ethics, so please stop doing that! UniversalPelasgian (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Arb Notice

Why did you not give the IP an Arb notice? Looks like a static IP. --Nug (talk)

I've mentioned you in a request to the Arbitration Committee[10]. --Nug (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Is there something about the weather today that makes people report me to Arbcom all the time? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. What I find puzzling is that you appear to be steadfast in your non-notification of the IP, despite my question and subsequent request to Arbcom. A simple "oops I forgot" followed up by said notification would have resolved the matter, one would have thought. But apparently not, it seems. --Nug (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

I asked you a question on the Massoud talk. Do you have any objections to the commission sentence? Also, what about the following as a compromise: "According to AJP, individuals of both forces committed abuses, but Roy Gutman points out: '...'" This would remove your OR, makes AJP clear, but leaves the interpretation to the reader. JCAla (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a general problem of weight in what you write. We now have one brief, summarized sentence pointing to something critical, and you are burying it under reams and reams of argumentative stuff evidently designed to counteract this criticism, with all the perceived mitigating arguments being given far more room and far more prominence. This includes your insistence on having all those positive things represented in extensive literal quotations. As for the wording suggestion above: no, not good. Linking two sentences with "but" strongly implies that the second is of higher validity than the first, i.e. that it successfully refutes it. You are by no means "leaving the interpretation to the reader" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We have two sentences mentioning a very serious allegation by a source (AJP). The allegation has never been judicially investigated and there is no "proven guilty". As such any observation by exceptional sources - which are not controversial - on the issue are of due weight and can be included into the article. Exceptional reliable sources on the matter are independent authors who were personally on the ground in Afshar and Kabul (such as John Jennings and Edward Girardet) and therefore can be considered as having exceptional knowledge carrying more weight than others. Those authors are in full accord with what the AJP witness testimonies show. I have chosen Roy Gutman's quote because of his credentials as a Pulizer Prize-winning war crimes expert and because he captures a lot of what has been described by these sources with on-the-ground insight, which I have read (did you?). At the same time he points to a fact which, by reading the AJP witness testimonies and the AJP section summaries on certain crimes, can be observed in the original source used for the allegation itself. This makes his quote further exceptional. I don't think you represented it correctly and therefore, it should be quoted in his own words.

It seems as if you want some sort of negative impression to stick and no historical facts which you describe as "positive" to be mentioned afterwards. That is neither NPOV nor appropriate weight. If a commission was established, a commission was established and it should be mentioned. It is part of the course of events. Your allegation of "burying" is completely misplaced. There is a lot which could be further mentioned, which I haven't done yet. Massoud i. e. had allowed an independent international observer with his core troops (which Anwar Dangar was not a part of) in the Afshar operation itself. That observer has described Massoud's core forces as acting rude towards militia combatants but that abuses by these core forces "were minimal", that there was no massacre by these forces and that he i. e. witnessed them carrying an Afshar civilian "caught in a cross-fire to safety". So, Gutman is actually a source "of the middle". It has been proven by testimony of Sayyaf's own commanders cited in a UN report that Sayyaf himself was behind the crimes (which took place during a legitimate military operation). The article does not reflect that appropriately. It is currently a fuzzy mess with no specific information and no distinctions made, which have been established by reliable sources - actually by first-hand accounts. JCAla (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick favour please

Since he's currently going on a mission uploading images that don't seem to appear on the source pages as claimed, could you block Gates of Dawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a Marquis sock please? He's given imself away at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron#Comments by other users 2 by responding to a sock report he wasn't even notified of. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hello FPS. Would it be possible to ask you for an avice? I found myself involved in this situation when an IP digged some old discussions I was involved in and asked me to help him (User_talk:FkpCascais#Help_me). He has found himself in the same old edit dispute many of us from WikiProject Football were involved some time ago. There is a possible breaking of WP:OWN on behalve of several Estonian editors who seem to work together in order to edit-war anyone changing the birthplace from (Estonia) to (Estonian SSR, Soviet Union). The later is what should actually be standard for all people born during the Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States, however these editors seem to want to have some sort of exception for Estonia. I actually don´t have a dog in this and I only involved myself back then simply because I defend consistency and historical accuracy, and trouth be said, I did get a bit annoyed by the agressiveness and "are you stupid?" attitude which was a bit thrown to us at that time by the Estonian users. The thing is that, yes, the occupation was not recognised by all states in the world, and yes, it is in fact an occupation, however it took too long, decades, and entire generations who were born in present-day Estonia were actually registered in the USSR and were USSR citizens (considered occupied, or not). While they are the ones claiming POV-pushing when inserting Soviet Union as birthplace, it atually seems more to me that they are the ones making POV-pushing and adding an unconsensual edit (beside edit-warring and owning articles in order to keep them in place and gain the "but that is standard for Estonian articles" argument).

Anyway, the IP edit-warred with them, and you rightfully blocked him and the other edit-warrior from the other side who broke the 3RR. Some other users on the Estonian side also edit-warred although they gamed the system by replacing eachother in order to avoid breaking the 3RR. While the IP was naive and kept edit-warring everyone, he did asked for help, and by now I think he understood the a bit of how WP works. So, what shall I advise him? He is right in the sense that Estonian editors end up having their edit in place because of their solidarity and because of their numbers, while hoping that other editors will give-up as allways happend in the past. The situation is kind of unfair as it stands now. FkpCascais (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this static IP started reverting as soon as he came off his block[11][12][13][14]. The Women's Tennis Association is a relaible source and they state both Kaia Kanepi and Maret Ani were born in Estonia[15][16]. Rather than encouraging his IP friend by seemingly playing the ethnic card against so-called "Estonian editors" on admin talk pages, FkpCascais should be advising his IP friend to discuss his proposed changes on talk first as I advised here. --Nug (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I advised him allways not to edit-war and to seek consensus. But Nug, as I said on my talk page, having a separate discussion in each Estonian bio talk page over this same issue doesn´t seem reasonable. You also claim that a tennis website can sorce a place of birth, but we already discussed that at some sports projecs and we did decided that no, sports-specialised websites are not good for sourcing geographical and histrical aspects. I was not involved in any of these edit-wars, and I do not intend to, but I do favour that a consensus should be built on this issue. While understand Estonian editors arguments, I also don´t find unreasonable at all the arguments of the other side. FkpCascais (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment below on FPS's block of Jaan. Perhaps clarification of MOS (use of sovereign country name) and the analogy I provide will lend some clarity. What may appear not unreasonable at the surface is completely unreasonable and contrary to WP:MOS. Consensus is not required. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question

Hello FP. From the WP:ARBSAQ log I see you are one of the admins who has done enforcement on this topic. Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been going through some activity. Two people who have reverted the article since May 1 have previously been notified under the Arbcom decision: User:Methinx and User:Jdkag. I haven't looked deeply enough into the edit history since May 1 to see if anything would be considered a violation of policy, but it raises some concerns in my mind. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Durres

I personally think that your edit here hasn't contributed to any constructive dialogue, unfortunately. You acknowledged the professionalism of the journal yet casted doubt on one of the contributors. Don't you feel that's going outside the remit of what wikipedia is supped to be about? If we questioned every author, where would we be? Either way, I would appreciate it if you came back to the debate and voiced your opinion again. Regards - Ottomanist (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaan and 24 hours

I appreciate the need to not devolve into endless reverts, however, your block of Jaan is likely to encourage more vandalism. Per WP:MOS, one uses the sovereign country at that time for one's place of birth. Blocking Jaan--that is, stating he was content-disputing, not undoing vandalism--is like stating that there would be a legitimate content dispute if someone listed "Lyon, Vichy France" for the birthplace of Michèle Boegner. If I make that WP:POINTY edit and followon reverts while another editor technically commits 3RR to undo my vandalism, would you block both of us? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are suffering from a rather severe case of WP:MPOV here, and I strongly recommend you get off it. I can assure you that I, and hopefully other admins too, will be treating this issue as a perfectly legitimate content dispute on both sides – and I'll add that I can think of at least one or two equally legitimate opinions that are possible beyond the two that have been edit-warred over here. If you continue treating the other side's edits as "vandalism", or calling them thus, you will be topic-banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The block issue is a dead horse now. But I am interested in the one or two other equally legitimate opinions that you can think of beyond the two under contention, would you be able to briefly them state them so that I and others can discuss them at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Baltic_states-related_articles? --Nug (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it would certainly be possible to make a case for the same practical solution you favour, while at the same time rejecting your reasons for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

FPS, how would you suggest that this matter should be dealt? Basically the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Baltic_states-related_articles was written only by the editors supporting one same solution and it is kind of disputed at least... I actually doubt most editors even know about the existence of it. FkpCascais (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you are welcome to spread the word at related WikiProjects about the ongoing discussion concerning a formalised MoS on Baltic states-related articles. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is untrue in many aspects. The MOS talk page features two birth country proposals, only one of them written by 'the editors supporting one same solution'. The other one was written by Philaweb and suggests to state the 'sovereign state' at the time. The question comes down to whether the sovereign state during an occupation is the occupied state or the occupying power. So far the practice in regard to occupations has been to state the first one. To change the practice to the latter would mean changing countries of birth and death during all occupations, e.g. Warsaw, Poland, 1944 to Warsaw, General Government, 1944 per Philaweb's and FkpCascais' understanding of sovereignity.

I don't understand what stops FkpCascais participating in the discussion at that page and makes him support berserk editing instead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that both of you have been doing "berserk editing" by edit-warring and reverting eachother. The only thing that stops me participating on the discussion there is that from past experiences I know that such discussions wan´t leave us nowhere without some admin overseing the discussion. We need either to agree on how this will be decided, or see some other form of dispute resolution. Just discussing will leave us into endless discussions with no agreement at the end. That is basically why I am refering myself to FPS and making this questions to him, and I hope he tells me at least if he is willing to help us there, or not, or if he has some other sugestion to make. I only hope his silence towards me doesn´t have to do with some old disputes we had in the past, as I am well over them a long time ago... FPS? FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that because you were unable to convince the other editors to accept your viewpoint in the past, you are now hoping that admin intervention will give you an editorial advantage? --Nug (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nug, what? I am clear in my post and your distortion here of my words is almost offensive. I am only asking to have someone neutral who will judge and decide, and I will accept the decition, whatever comes to be, and btw, my relaion with FPS has been quite harsh in the past as we had some missunderstandings, and if I wanted to have a "friendly admin" I wouldn´t certailnly had comed here to him... Please stop provoking me only because I oppose an edit of yours. FkpCascais (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll take the discussion where it belongs. I reach out with an honest question and I get accused of megalomanaical POV? And threats of a topic ban. What happened to discuss the edit, not the editor? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

thomas moore redirect

The consensus was that WT:UP should not be changed (seen the RfC), and the follow up thread does not show consensus for the change towards disallowing redirects from userspace to mainspace. In other words, there is no consensus, and nothing in WP:UP shows that these redirects are not allowed. this and this clearly shows that there is no consensus that this should be disallowed, nor that it is disruptive. Seen that with the revert, you choose stance against that consensus, I think that either you revert, or protect, not both. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding to this, WP:UP does say: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The way I read the discussion on WT:UP#User page redirects to article space, there is in fact a very clear consensus that these redirects are wrong and should not be done. What there was no consensus for was to introduce an explicit passage in the policy page disallowing them. But, since Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy (and also not a rule of law), not being explicitly forbidden in policy texts doesn't mean something is automatically allowed. There are myriads of stupid things that people have done or have considered doing, and which are so obviously wrong that nobody has ever bothered to explicitly disallow them. For this reason, the opinion brought forward by a few voices in the debate, that Penyulap must be allowed to do these things simply because there is no clause forbidding them doesn't carry any weight in my eyes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely ludicrous. You jumped into the middle of an edit war that appeared to be winding down, restored your preferred version, and locked the page to enforce your flawed interpretation of the rules. Sorry, but that just looks like a pretty ham-fisted use of the admin tools to me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to your deleting the redirect here. There was an improper close of an RFC and a lot of "IDONTLIKEIT" (and general frustration with Pen, which is often understandable) but I didn't see a single policy based rationale for not allowing the redirect. As a matter of fact, I only saw that the policy went out of its way to only discuss redirecting talk pages, which can't be a mistake or oversight as it would have been easier to include it had that been the original intent. And I see a couple of admins reverting each other. Rather than get into a wheel war, I would ask the same question that I asked in the RFC, which is where is this disallowed and how is it being disruptive? I'm of the opinion that admins should leave editors pretty much alone and not micromanage them unless there is a specific policy violation or greater good that is being served, and in this case, no one has taken the time to actually explain this. Since you did that last revert, perhaps you could, as your explanation is still lacking. We should not be in the business of deciding every editor's user page decision that isn't against policy, as that seems a bit beyond the authority of what we admins (or even a consensus) should be doing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It was quite clearly explained why such a redirect is objectively disruptive: a person wanting to communicate with the user will be led to the wrong page, from where they might, for instance, be led on to the wrong talk page, or find themselves unable to access the user's contribution history, which they expect to be accessible from a user page. In short, it is against the whole purpose of what user pages are for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages, yes, but not user pages. This is why the policy goes out of its way to only include the talk page. It is such a trivial thing, but the larger issue is very disturbing to me. Users are given a great deal of freedom on their user page, even if is a bit inconvenient. As I see it, the policy intentionally excluded the user page from an absolute bar on redirects, meaning it is decided on an individual basis. I understand in some cases where we would restrict content because it violates a policy or causes harm to the project, but the redirect causes less inconvenience than this discussion itself. My concern isn't this particular redirect as much as the larger issue of us, as a community, imposing our will in the absence of real harm. As for "the whole purpose of what user pages are for", we have always granted a high degree of flexibility and latitude when it comes to user pages, including tolerating some that are moderately offensive or less than fully compliant with the spirit of WP:UP. This is a declared humor account, and while I can't say I get the joke, that isn't my place to judge. In the absence of actual harm, and based on the seemingly intention exclusion of the user page in the policy, I am forced to conclude this is an error. I have no doubt that your faith in these action is good, but I think you and others are being too inflexible and would better serve our goals by being more tolerant in cases where there is reasonable difference of interpretation. While this one page itself is trivial, the act of force controlling content on a user page is damaging to the encyclopedia, and is strongly counter to our goal of attracting and keeping good editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

New message

You got a new message on the Massoud talk page. JCAla (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Vernatun

First of all, please lower your tone and explain what's the problem with putting two pictures next to each other.--Yerevanci (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether or not to put them next to each other. The issue is that this is a non-free image, and we can use non-free artworks only when they meet all the conditions of WP:NFCC, which this one doesn't, because you are not using it to support sourced analytical discussion of the artwork itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK then, that's a different story. Thanks for the explanation.--Yerevanci (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern Greek grammar

Hey, you're welcome. It looked like a weird name for a news article :P. By the way, you're doing a great job in that article. See you, Qoan (say it!) 11:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed new account اردیبهشت (Ordibehesht)

Hi. Per your offer at Talk:History of Pakistan, I just flagged اردیبهشت (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (his Farsi user name transliterates as "Ordibehesht") as a "confirmed" user. This is the IP editor who was involved in the dispute on that article, whom you offered to confirm once he got an account. Apparently, he tried to contact you (see here at WP:3O), but he was unable to leave a note on your talk page because your talk page is semi-protected. In a note on Ordibehesht's talk page, I re-emphasized the importance of not engaging in edit-warring. Cheers. — Richwales 00:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Yeah, having to keep my own page semiprotected sometimes is a pain, but I don't want my page to end up like this one. I thought he would show up under his new account on the article talkpage, where I would have seen him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation help

"Südabbrüche" und "Schrofenflanken" -- any idea what these mean in the sense of mountain geology? See User:PumpkinSky/Fritzerkogel. PumpkinSky talk 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Schrofen (I had never heard that word before) seems to be a mountaineering term in German and means a steep rocky slope. We have an article here about it. "Flanke" means "side" or "flank", so literally you'd end up with "steep rocky slopes on its sides". An "abbruch" would be a cliff left by a rockslide, so a "Südabbruch" is just such a cliff on the southern side of the mountain. For "relativ allein stehend", which you translated as "standalone", you might try if topographic prominence describes what you mean. A "Zweitausender" is simply a mountain higher than 2,000 (but less than 3,000) meters. "Gosaukamm" should probably be translated as "Gosau ridge", "Dachsteingebirge" as "Dachstein mountains" or "Dachstein range". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank!PumpkinSky talk 09:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Noor119848/Noormohammed satya

On 9 July 2011 you issued a final warning for copyright problems to User:Noormohammed satya. Probably as a result, the user abandoned that account, and started editing as User:Noor119848 instead. (This is evidenced by the two accounts' contribution history, but more explicitly by the identical content (including the user's name and birthdate) on the two user pages.) You recently issued a similar warning to that account, perhaps without realizing that it was the same contributor. If you check the new account's user talk page history (which has been blanked several times), you'll see that the user has persisted, right up to the present day, in uploading non-free images with missing or incomplete copyright information or fair use rationales, and also related problematic behaviour such as adding unreferenced biographical content, posting a number of copyvio articles, removing speedy deletion templates, and removing copyvio templates. He doesn't appear to have ever responded to the scores of warnings posted on his talk pages, except to periodically remove them.

As you're the administrator who already issued this user a final warning I thought I'd bring it to your attention first before posting to WP:CCI or WP:ANI. Please let me know if you'd like to continue to deal with the issue. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess. Yes, I evidently overlooked that identity with the earlier account. Thanks for figuring it all out. I've indeffed him; it doesn't look like there's much of a chance for him to become constructive any time soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

He appears to have resumed editing with anonymous IPs almost immediately after your block. I've opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noormohammed satya so that others can start tracking and blocking the socks as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On further investigation, these are probably all socks of long-term vandal User:Thomas.young234. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you've the time and inclination, please consider blocking the latest sockpuppet account, Noorsatya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is very active and removing deletion and copyvio templates from the puppetmasters' articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Achaemenid empire and the Indian subcontinent

Hello there. I have created an account and explained my revision at Talk:History_of_Pakistan#Bogus_and_factually_incorrect_Achaemenid_section over a week ago which has gone unanswered. If you have time, please take a look over my points and glance over the references i have provided for my re-write. I will revert the section back to my version if my points remain unanswered by those who had disputed my revision. Thanks! اردیبهشت (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So...

Do you think I'm harassing andreasegde? Here's the discussion, blanked by andreasegde, and somewhat continued on my talk page. szyslak (t) 21:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Images of fictional characters and/or shows in Getty Images

Since you know more about Getty Images and image copyrights, you might, as well, join in by clicking above. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing tag-team edit warring on Dhimmitude

Since you warned Estlandia, Frotz and Shrike at 3RR over this behavior, you might want to be aware of the fact that they're still at it: [17]. VolunteerMarek 11:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

disruptive behavior

please note the extremely disruptive and destructive behavior of user shrike on the edit warring-noticeboard [18], and on the dhimmitude-page [19]. he is blatantly trying to game the system by making disruptive edits so that he is reverted. he is making false accusations against me on the edit warring-noticeboard by listing up unrelated diffs. he become disruptive when he failed to get me banned, and when it became clear that he has been misrepresenting the sources.-- altetendekrabbe  10:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

IP warring

Purely because you are around, do you mind taking a quick look at the contributions of User:‎188.28.13.194? Obvious block for 3RR/warring required. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just for the record, that IP is blocked for 24 hours already. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I just noticed JamesBWatson slip in there to do the necessary. Sorry to bother you. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Euzen 2.0

Since the last time I left you a message Euzen's edits have been less than constructive[20]. I even tried for the n-th time to explain BRD/OR/SYNTH/RS, but the responses have to do with the usual claims about the Albanian national mythology, users trying to hide the truth etc. The amount of misinterpretaion of the sources (outdated or not) is just mind-boggling. Would you try to explain to him again what he's supposed to do? --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the discussion has devolved into conspiracy theories about the motivations of Anglo-Saxon authors (which apparently only Euzen is aware of).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My topic ban

My editing since my topic ban is here it has been indicated on my talk page that some of my editing may be violation of my topic ban. I would like to have your opinion about my editing in general and about creating a page about a book released last year Solstice at Panipat. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thessaloniki Ottoman& Byzantine monuments

Just a heads up that a particularly silly nationalist POV dispute over in the Greek WP has spilled over here. Given the main culprit's propensity to create sockpuppets, and his creation of this template, I am almost certain that this guy and this guy are the same. Same edits, same mentality. Constantine ✍ 21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images

My understanding is that if any free images are available we aren't to use non-free images just for the purposes of embellishment (especially infobox), but I seem to be reverted all too often on that, can you check Shammi Kapoor and Rajesh Khanna? We have quite a few free images at Commons and more at the source from where these were taken. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I added Kapoor's image back because his major career has been in his young age; atleast the one that he is recognized for. The infobox image should be thus suitable. Shouldn't it? I haven't done that yet on Khanna as his appearance isn't that drastically different. Was in fact waiting for SpacemanSpiff's comment on my talk page. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that before (your tp seems to be high traffic today), I normally stay away from NFCC unless it's obvious cases (like it appeared to me in these two), but as in both articles, at least two of the people who reverted are long-standing editors, I'd brought it to FPaS' attention. Eitherways, I don't know what's going on with DASHbot, it keeps reverting the unused DI tag for Shammi Kapoor even when at that point in time the image wasn't in use. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem! But then what is your opinion on this? This case would happen with almost all actors of 60s-70s who have drastically changed. Article on Sadhana Shivdasani uses a non-free image File:Sadhana in film, Ek Musafir Ek Hasina (1962).jpg although she is alive and hence free image of her can be found. Unavailability on Wiki is not a reason for using non-free image. The reason is that she has changed. See her latest image. Similar is the case with Shashi Kapoor. The current young-age image used will be deleted soon. Its probably a copyvio. Have asked Sreejithk2000 to look into this. After it's deletion we are left with his current images which are very different. What should be done then? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now should we have Shashi Kapoor's young age non-free image or not? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't host also have any opinion on this? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

user shrike

i am trying to stay away from shrike... but see how is after me like a hound, [21]. he should also try to de-escalate rather than follow me around. i am pretty sure he will begin an edit war pretty soon (that is his modus operandi). the last time he edited there was like weeks ago... suddenly he began editing again..today... on my post. that's not a coincidence. anyway, i'm not going to be part of that discussion anymore. could you please ask him to stop stalking me?-- altetendekrabbe  18:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Careful: you have no immunity from him, or others, on public noticeboards. If he uses your contribution list the same way I use those of many others, it's only natural he might see your posting there, and if it's related to a topic of interest to him, he has every right to comment. In this case, he made a matter-of-fact comment, and it was you who personalized the thing with accusations against him.

Incidentally, my personal opinion happens to be that you are probably also wrong about the question you raised. For a source to be reliable is not the same as for it to have no editorial bias. The Middle East Quarterly can be a serious academic, peer-reviewed publication, and as such meet our reliability criteria with flying colours, while still having a pronounced political bias. That's no contradiction, because academics out there have no ethical obligation to be "neutral" as we do here on WP. In fact, there is no such thing as a "neutral" source at all. Especially when it comes to topics like history and political science, we should always assume, about any source at all, that it may have some authorial slant, no matter how serious and academic it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i find it funny that he responds to my post only... today after not being active there a while. if you investigate his previous edits you'll see the pattern. if he continues with this behavior i'll take it to rfc/u. anyway, i'm not going to participate on that post anymore.-- altetendekrabbe  18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nasrallah

I appreciate your help with the Ahmadinejad quote.

I wanted to point out something else on the article, which seems like blatant vandalism, but to get your opinion on it.

Under Lebanon's reaction, it says "In a speech given to his supporters to mark the sixth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah did not mention the attack."

It seems like vandalism. Who cares if he didn't mention the attack? Perhaps the United States Minister of Agriculture didn't mention the attack either, does that belong under the U.S. reaction??

The original line was "In a speech given to his supporters to mark the sixth anniversary of the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah did not take responsibility for the attack, but said that Hezbollah is "chasing Israelis day and night" and promised a "big surprise" for Israel."

Thus, to me it appeared to be vandalism, by removing one part of the sentence to create an unnecessary sentence, or maybe take a jab at an editor. I feel that the original sentence is perfectly fine and maintains NPOV.

What are your thoughts on this? --Activism1234 22:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a similar problem. Both Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are presumably people who use this kind of rhetoric about "enemies" and how much trouble they cause them more or less every day. So if they are now saying today pretty much the same thing they would have said a week ago or a year ago or next month, why are we bringing it up here in the context of this article at all? I guess the edit you are referring to [22] is a rather clumsy attempt at fixing this, but the problem the 109.* IP saw seems pretty much the same issue I saw with the Ahmadinejad passage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true they do say it often. The reason I believe it was brought up here is because it was said in a speech right after the attack, so it did have relevance, since it was a reaction. "Oh we didn't do it, but how do we react to this attack? Well..." However, unlike the Ahmadinejad one, it specifically mentioned that Nasrallah and Hezbollah did not take responsibility, both during the speech and before the speech. Otherwise, the sentence should be completely removed, but I sincerely feel the previous edit was fine. --Activism1234 22:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note - I've been working on this article shortly after it's inception, and have been very dedicated to it. You can tell that just by going to the page's history or my user contributions. I've constantly updated it with more info, added more countrie's reactions, etc. Thus, when I see possible vandalism or distortion like the above, in which part of a setnence is removed to just create an unnecessary sentence, I do everything I can to clear and fix it up and make the page better, which I believe is done best with working with cooperative editors. Thanks.--Activism1234 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the poll at Sgt Pepper

Now User talk:Penyulap is disrupting the straw poll at Sgt Pepper. What should I do, can you help with this please? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is now more disruption occuring there. Please take a look. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Midan photo

I have replied as you instructed. And I'm telling you the same thing I said on the image's page. With the exception of the government news videos that were broadcast for propaganda purposes there were no other video footage or photos that clearly depicted the Midan street fighting in Damascus of the last few days which was highly notable and constant in the international media. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

Hello, I was just wondering why my two diagrams were removed from the Kallmann syndrome page. The diagrams are a representation of text above and below the diagrams. The diagrams were created for me by a medical illustrator over 15 years ago for a booklet I helped to write and I own the copyright to them. Did I label them incorrectly ? It was the first time I have tried to upload that sort of image but I thought I did it correctly as they are my own images. Please could you advise me on what I should have done. Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. I didn't actually understand from the description that these were your own work. If you own the copyrights to these, and you wish to see them used here, what you could do is to release them under a free license, by placing a license tag such as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} on them. That contribution would indeed be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, as long as they were described as "non-free", we'd have no way of keeping them, no matter if they are yours or somebody else's, because they fall under our replaceability rule for non-free works. (Incidentally, they were indeed also labelled incorrectly, because the graphics as such are not really the "topic of the article" – they are not the object of discussion, but merely an illustration to support the discussion of the article topic).

Please let me know if you would like to release the images under a free license; I'll then restore them so you can add the necessary tag to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks at an article talk page

There are numerous personal attacks against me at the Sgt Pepper talk page. Other editors have tried to "hat" them but one or two users keep restoring them. It is my understanding that personal attacks can and should be removed from the talk page. Can you offer any advice in this regard, Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

You wrote:

In a speech delivered the following night, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking about Iran's conflicts with foreign "enemies", mentioned "heavier blows" that would be dealt by Iran against its oppressors. These words were interpreted by some Israeli media as a veiled reference to the Burgas attack and a "gloating" hint at Iranian involvement in it.

Unfortunately, this edit makes numerous mistakes. I would appreciate if you correct it.

• "heavier blows that would be dealt by Iran" - please identify where he said this. If we look at the sources, for example this state ownedIranian one, he said "“The enemy deals a blow to the Iranian nations step by step; but, in return, it receives a stronger, heavier blow,” President Ahmadinejad said." Please don't try to distort sources or quotes.
• "oppressors" - violates WP:NPOV by assuming it's oppressed. The proper thing would be to write "enemies" in quotes, since that's what he said.
• "veiled reference" - please identify where you got the word "veiled" from.
• "speaking about Iran's conflicts with foreign enemies" - please identify where you got this from, or remove it.
• Removes valuable and important quotes to conform to a POV.

Please self-revert or edit appropriately. --Activism1234 21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe my wording is within the bounds of responsible paraphrasing and, as such, true to the source, albeit less literally than the direct quotations. If you have quibbles with details of wording, feel free to tweak. However, what is non-negotiable is that we must not present his statements as if they were undoubtedly related to the Burgas attacks, as the previous version did. The previous version claimed that he "described the attacks" as an Iranian act. This is quite patently false, as he didn't in fact mention the attacks at all. Do not reinsert any wording of that kind.

I am giving you notice that I regard this as a WP:BLP issue: claiming that a living politician took responsibility for a terrorist act, as the previous version did, is a very serious matter, and falls under the rule that "exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence". As such, I reserve the right to use administrative means to prevent such claims from being reinserted in the article. Other than that I am totally open about the wording though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I will change the wording. I wanted to make sure it was fine with you so I am not sued for WP:1RR. The wording has been reinserted and reverted at different times by various editors. I simply noticed that it was your revert and edit so I brought it up with you. On the side, can you please identify with a diff where the previous edit said that it was an Iranian act? --Activism1234 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, the version immediately before my edit [23] was saying that he described the attack as a "response" to Israeli "blows against Iran". Nothing unclear about that being a claim of "we did it" (if he had said it this way, which he didn't). By the way, I suggest you propose further rewordings on talk first, to take the heat out of the reverting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear though why that statement was made, as that was how an RS outlet reported it. The conflict some people are having is they are looking at the Iranian outlet as the true one, and ignoring anything an Israeli outlet said. What the Iranian outlet said is definitely true, but what the Israeli outlet quotes are further statements he made that were televised. At either rate, I don't want to get into this whole silly argument and edit warring over this now, maybe we can come back to it in a month or so... It's distracting from main point of article. --Activism1234 22:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Future. It was a good idea to remove it for the time being and wait and see what happens. I read a report (same outlet that reported on what he said) that claimed that Ahmadinejad was referring to sanctions, and was talking about the future tense, not Burgas and past tense. Thanks for being so keen and diligent on this, it really goes a long way. --Activism1234 04:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Quione

Quione (talk · contribs) persists in disruptive talk page commentaries on Talk:Aspartame controversy and makes no effort at engaging other editors. While a few early edits were constructive, this has degenerated to disruption-only for more than a year. The last effort to engage on this page was ignored despite notification.Novangelis (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War

I myself is a freedom fighter and have books for references.The Operation Jackpot and Bangladesh Airforce activties are not written by me rather these are facts and truth written authors and writter with booh which have ISBN number.If some one changes my version must show valid reasons. Small grammer mistakes can not lead to change the trur version.It is obivious that readers should read the fact.It might go against a person or against a nation but the facts are to narrated as it happened.Any further change must be done with book or very acceptable references. I am sure one who reads this pages knows very well how and why it could be changed.Thats why I have reverted the Bangladesh Liberation war with the leagl changes I made.Before reverting just think it over the rules. Regards, --Frankfurt55 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but you evidently have no understanding of just how poor your English writing is. These are not "small grammar mistakes"; it is just extremely poor quality material. It is also full of factually irrelevant detail, poorly structured and poorly focussed. If you continue pushing this sort of material into articles, it may become necessary to block you from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Try to block me show you can block me.If you can not than I know you write more than what you are. Block me.Show me once that you can block me. Its not your job neither you are master of Wikipedia.OK By Now --Frankfurt55 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi

No one seems to have noticed this. Could you ask someone to give it some attention, or address it yourself?

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Laufen Hut DYK

Hi FPAS. I thought you may like to know, if you don't already, that his article which you helped do a bit of translation for, is part of a triple DYK as lead hook right now on the main page. PumpkinSky talk 10:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright

Could you look at File:TwoBinaryClocks.jpg. While the flickr source marked 'Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)', the image, according to flickr description. appears to be a copy from here, thus non-free. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good find, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pressburg, again.

Please have a look on the article's latest actions, Slovakian users (and some puppets) keeps reverting the edits.

Thank you Csendesmark (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

TDKR

It is protected I think. I don't think I am violating 3RR though as I'm just undoing the addition of unsourced original research to prevent the millions of article visitors being exposed to that incorrect stuff. Not much more I can do than that, discussing rational things with them isn't working so well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

While I appreciate you suggestion that I pursue noticeboards in the future, that's all I've ever done. It generally results in being ignored, being told that it isn't worth an admins time, being told I'm using the wrong noticeboard, or occasionally, being blocked myself, resulting in half an hour and god knows how much in edits and energy wasted. All this over a very clear cut of disregard for consensus and edit warring by an editor who's been here less than a week and is concerned only with this one topic. It's stressful, frustrating, and after 5 years no longer worth it. I quit. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop

Stalking me and leaving snarky edit summarys. If you continue I will seek an interaction ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got some nerve. You keep playing fast and loose with sources on sensitive topics all over the place, and when somebody goes and tries to clean up after you it's stalking. Yeah, right. Read WP:HOUND: we have contribution histories for a reason, and when somebody has a clear pattern of problematic editing across many articles, as you undoubtedly do, then it is absolutely legitimate to follow them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is stalking, I am always accurate to the sources used. Do. Do not to say I am not. You have no legitimate reason to stalk me so stop NOW. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you honestly think that what you've been doing is responsible and correct work with sources, you have a lot to learn still. In the meantime, somebody needs to do some watching over you, and if it has to be me it will be me. If you don't like it, tough luck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed Darkness Shines and am unimpressed. And TopGun. Were they not both whacked at ANI a little while ago? Why are they allowed here at all? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. Well, there's a proposal to get discretionary sanctions imposed by the arbitrary committee, which would be something. But the whacking they got (in the form of interaction ban and revert limitations) has actually been lifted recently, believe it or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

He just filed an SPI. POV pushers do often attract socks. I've edited some of the articles these two are into and it does seem all about smear campaigns. They should both be topic banned from India-Pakistan and prolly anything adjacent, just to be sure. I'm sure there are articles about birds native to Costa Rica they could go and edit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Last time, stop following me[24] Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I already told you: the answer is No. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

Please could you have a look at this.[25] Was it appropriate that Item 13 gaming of my 1-rr restriction by user ankhmorpork should have been archived? Would it have been better if an admin had closed it first?

I asked advice on User talk:Dennis Brown and he said to ask you.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bulgaria". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Interlanguage wikipedia link within artile discussion

Some Chinese Wikipedian told me, English Wikipedia is a improper place to discuss this issue. I closed the discussion and moved to meta. Please continue the discussion in meta.--王小朋友 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was not very good advice. I think it's quite the opposite: this matter can only be decided here on our own wiki, because it's a question of our (en-wiki) editorial rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I opened it again.--王小朋友 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I translate some opposite reasons gave by Chinese users on village pump. Please comment if possible.--王小朋友 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Open Government License files

Can you please undelete these probable Open Government License files you deleted?

• File:Lord Hill Minister.jpg
• File:Nick Gibb Minister.jpg
• File:Michael Gove Minister.jpg
• File:Sarah Teather Minister.jpg
• File:Tim Loughton Minister.jpg
• File:John Healey2.jpg
• File:Rosie Winterton2.jpg
• File:Phil Hope2.jpg
• File:Patricia Hewitt3.jpg
• File:Mike O'Brien2.jpg
• File:Lord Warner2.jpg
• File:Lord Darzi2.jpg
• File:Ivan Lewis2.jpg
• File:Gillian Merron2.jpg
• File:Caroline Flint2.jpg
• File:Ben Bradshaw2.jpg
• File:Ann Keen2.jpg
• File:Alan Johnson2.jpg

Most of these did not have specific statements that they were under the Open Government License at their source (some may now), but are under the license nonetheless: Their copyright is owned by the crown, so unless they are by agencies with exemptions (delegations of authority) from the U.K. government's main licensing scheme, they are released by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

(These are all the images you deleted which were listed at PUF except some by the Ministry of Defense, which has a delegation of authority—I might ask you about these if matters become clearer, or about images not listed at PUF.)

I'm asking you since it looks like I'm supposed to first to get these undeleted per WP:Deletion review. A few of these may be on Commons (some are not), and faintly possible some are not under the OGL, but I can't tell without administrative privileges. —innotata 22:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted these not so much for copyright reasons but because they were uploaded by an annoying serial sockpuppeter. If you want to take responsibility for them, copyright-wise, I have no problem undeleting them. Please give me a bit of time to go through them, I'll probably get round to doing them bit by bit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for them—assuming this doesn't mean much, even if I am mistaken. However, I expect all of these are fine from what I know (though some similarly clear images have been incorrectly deleted on Commons), those that aren't I'll ask you to delete. Thanks, —innotata 17:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you undelete these in the next couple of days? I'd like to at least review them for problems, before a trip 4–11 Aug, maybe you'd best undelete them after otherwise. I don't think it should take much time, as I'll check if the images have been uploaded to different names or have copyright issues. —innotata 23:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for undeleting these, I'm moving their list here to separate them. They all were uploaded to Commons the day I asked you to undelete the lot, so they can be deleted. I think most are, but at least Tim Loughton's above doesn't look like the same one as that on Commons, and I can't be sure on any without seeing them.

• File:Hilary Benn2.jpg
• File:Lord Davies of Oldham.jpg
• File:Jim Fitzpatrick2.jpg
• File:Huw Irranca Davies2.jpg
• File:Dan Norris2.jpg
• File:Bill McKenzie.jpg
• File:Barbara Follett2.jpg
• File:Ian Austin2.jpg
• File:John Denham2.jpg

—innotata 13:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

AE timing

Don't you find it kinda draconian on Djsasso's part, to report me after I 'twice' deleted his posts? Up until that moment, he wasn't concerned about anything on my userpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, it's just so frustrating, knowing that there's editors out there, who are so miserable, that they keep you on their watchlists & wait to jump you for any assumed mistake. I'm not angry with the arbitrators, but rather the dicks who apparently don't have anything better to do. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi me

Would you mind semiprotecting my userpage for about a week? I posted a request for more admin eyes on Syrian articles and more voices on the talkpages, and well, the main Syrian article was protected for a week, but no doubt that's just diverted the problem elsewhere. Including my userpage apparently, so hopefully if the Syria page is unprotected before my userpage is, IPs will focus their attention there. CMD (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, much appreciated. CMD (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2012) Page

Hey can you remove the line that says "Iran's PressTV reported that 150 rebels were killed in Salaheddin in the attack of a school where they were hiding" from the Battle of Aleppo (2012) page? Iranian press tv is not a reliable source, and considering this is a current event page (one that is supposed to get updated every few hours), it could be pretty damaging. Sopher99 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The press tv article even starts out by saying "Syrian troops have stormed armed groups’ command center in the northern city of Aleppo, killing at least 150 terrorists fighting against the government." It is already break NPOV by calling the Free Syrian Army terrorists, something no other media does other than the Syrian government's state media, and Hezbollah's al manar media. Sopher99 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you protected the page Battle of Aleppo for a full two weeks from people editing. I think this is a bit extreme due to the battle being ongoing and the article would be than highly out-of-date and misleading for readers if it is not updated for 14 days. I approve of the warring editors being blocked but I think the article itself should not be blocked for such a long period of time given it is an ongoing event at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not meant to block article development entirely. Additions and corrections can still be made through edit requests on the talk page. It's just that some basic level of consensus and reasonable sourcing will have to be demonstrated for each change before it will be made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you just undo it in general? We will just report 3rv breakers, thats all. This is a current event page, shouldn't be blocked. Just make it Autoconfirmed-requred protection Sopher99 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you will be flooded with edit request due to this being a notable current event battle that is rapidly changing. And I agree with Sopher, Autoconfirmed-required protection only. In case you are not going to downgrade the protection here are my requests than:
1. Change FSA general claims to be in control of 70% of Aleppo in infobox and replace with FSA claims to be in control of 50% of Aleppo with this source [26]. The source I provided is a new and more up-to-date one.
2. Change Syrian Liberation Army takes control of other districts as well and Kurdish YPG takes control of two northern districts and replace both with one sentence SLA and Kurdish YPG claim control of several other districts and keep the two sources
3. Change Zaino Berri (Shabiha leader and tribal head) and replace with Zaino Berri (Shabiha tribal leader) and remove the ireportcnn source, the al jazeera source is enough I think.
4. Change 32-45 AFVs destroyed and replace with 12-15 AFVs destroyed All rebel sources in the article have made a cumulative claim of 12-15 tanks and other armored vehicles destroyed, which I put earlier, obviously somebody made an unsourced change before the article was protected.
5. Change 4-7 captured and replace with 14 captured based on this source [27], which I would ask that you add please.
That's about it, my request is mostly for improving the style look of the information in the infobox so it looks better when read and the two requests for the update of claimed FSA control of the city (the other source is more than a day old and made by a FSA commander who is in Turkey and not even in Aleppo itself) and the update of number of captured armored vehicles. Thank you in advance. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo 2012

Hi!, why don't you add the Al Qaeda flag? they have a black scary flag I think. Nienk (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Alqaeda does not have a flag. You are thinking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada . Sopher99 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But in the article of the Syrian civil war, Al Qaeda does have a flag. Look at it. Nienk (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo - Hezbollah as combatant

"The source for involvement of Hezbollah in the Battle of Aleppo doesn't say at all they are involved or fighting. I don't want to start a new edit warring, I'll rather try to explain the problem here. The source in its title says that Hezbollah was "sent", but later in the text it is states that Hezbollah "could be used in the Battle of Aleppo", now some users must know a difference between words "could be" and "is". --Wustenfuchs

We can put "Alleged" --Sopher99

No, we can't as it is not alleged. It is only stated that they might be used, which means they aren't still used, if they are even in Syria. And alleged informations aren't good thing in Wikipedia. If we would add alleged infos, then you can freely add that Elvis is allegedly still alive in article about him. Besides, no other newspaper mentions such thing as Hezbollah in Aleppo. --Wustenfuchs"

This is part of the Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012).

The Hezbollah needs to be removed from the list of combatants, as there is no source its involved in the battle. --Wustenfuchs 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SMS ^Talk 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Podiatry Pictures

if you keep deleting them maybe you should be responsible for finding new ones

No, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. We have very clear rules (see WP:NFC) saying that if a non-free image could be replaced, then it simply must not be kept, no matter if somebody actually manages to replace it or not. Just because I'm enforcing this rule doesn't mean I'm suddenly obliged to go hunting for images on somebody else's behalf. That's beyond my power. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:MJ in Bucharest92.jpg

Hello!

You can delete all the picture files I have uploaded on Dangerous Tour and History Tour pages. I tried to get a straight permission for using these files in Wikipedia, but failed to get it.

Therefore I please you to delete the files. I understand the importance of copyright laws and promise that I won`t upload any more files without correct permissions.

Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mi 8 pic

You marked File:UNAMSIL Indian Mil Mi-8.jpg as unverifiable copyright, how to verify it? Sorry about the doubts, I'm new to photos, and don't know much about how to find out it's copyright. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bulgaria, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Just further confirmation...

...that Neogeolegend likes to troll. He's been permanently banned on Persian Wikipedia for disruptive editing (see SUL/Accounts). Looks like he was changing the name of the Persian Gulf to "Arabian Gulf". Absolutely typical POV-warrior stuff. Your block was a good one. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Troy

Hi Future Perfect, if you have any info on the topic, could you offer it at Talk:Troy#Ilion vs Ilios. All my books are packed up and I have a sneaking suspicion that I disagree with modern scholarship and have reverted an edit that was simply common knowledge because of something that just became right in my head over the years.  ^davidiad_.: 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I feel sort of flattered about being asked for advice, but I'm afraid I probably know quite a bit less about this sort of stuff than you do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think anyone today would assign a dialect and comments like the one you provided are as far as any reasonable Hellenist should go. I suspect that the common statement that "X is the Homeric form" has been taken to be more universally significant than it is. But still, I might be a bit too pedantic on the dialect point. I'll toss together a footnote built on your link as a compromise—I just feel like a jerk disagreeing with a well-meaning IP when I don't have anything to offer as rebuttal. Thanks for looking at that.  ^davidiad_.: 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Afd for Kalervo Kurkiala

Please see my request here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalervo Kurkiala. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection requested

Would you please semi-protect Macbeth? I'm getting ready to do some work there and it draws a lot of vandalism. (In fact I don't know why all the Shakespeare pages aren't semi-protected by default; they're natural targets for middle-school vandals.) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE AMINUR RAHMAN,KHOSRU

Dear Sir, The article was deleted by you on 6th Augst,2012 16.08 Hours with the grounds that the article is poorly sourced and a Baiographic vanity. The person was a youngest commander of Mongla operation of 15th August 1971. As per wiki sources regulation of Military persons biography,he comes under clause five, where it is clearly said that if a person has commanded a certain war,whoes biography could be prserved in wiki. Beside that,article was well sourced with book refrences which all have ISBN Numbers. I am sure,I won´t be able to convince you through my arguments.For that I am too small to you.If you want to do some thing,there is a way.If you wish you can re-install the article again. About Bangladeshis there are few articles.He being a freedom fighter, commander of an operation ,deserve that the article should be re-installed again. I am appealing you to consider the matter once again and request you if the wiki terms conditions allows,please re-install the article again. I know you have syampathie for those who are neglected and repressed. The person have done some thing which is really known to Bangladesh Liberation war.There are many Biographies of Bangladeshis in Wiki who even have not commanded a war or was not prsent in Military operation still the name of those persons life histroy could be seen as wikipedia Military persons biography. I hope you will consider the matter and give me advises how to re-install the article. With regards, --Frankfurt55 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I am not unhappy nor I am shocked that you block me 3 times in one week. This particular blocks make me very alert about few matters and while I was blocked I read many Wiki regulations.Now I know a little bit about wiki for that I want to thank you.It was not possible if you would not block me.My blocking was necessary. Regards Frankfurt55 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note

FP, note was not agreed by ARBMAC, but it was created following that agreement. How should we write in order to explain that? Reason for creation is to follow ARBMAC, and none imply that usage is sanctioned by arbmac? Why did you concluded that? --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this is not ok, Kosovo is only mentioned as a independent country, alongside other countries. That is not acceptable, per agreement from List of sovereign states, and Kosovo note agreement. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The essence of ARBMAC is that Arbcom stated all editors should behave properly (or be sanctioned). Why would one particular content decision be dependent in any noteworthy way on a resolution that all editors should behave properly? That resolution affects all content decisions in the same way. It is quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. Also, stop citing "agreements" that don't exist. If you want to use that note on this article, form a local consensus on this article's talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this. ARBMAC is not important, we have agreement to use this note. Mention of ARBMAC is not so mush important as the note it self is. And no, we should not create new consensus for using this each time over and over, on each page. None never questioned this, exept nationalist fighters, as it is better just to use word Kosovo with small note, then "disputed region of Kosovo, Kosovo/Serbia. etc... You are implying that Kosovo is sovereign state without that note, in the same level as other states, but that is simply far from truth. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What exectly is the problem with usage of that note on page? Can you please tell me, and we will see how to fix that problem. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or at the end, we can question the usage of template on any page, but we have consensus to use template, and not consensus to create consensus each time over and over again. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is that consensus? I'm not seeing it. The only thing I was pointed to was some discussion among a handful of editors on some out-of-the-way minor talkpage several years ago. If there has been a project-wide consensus procedure, please point me to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure that i should not tell you what consensus is. Agreement between users. That kind of agreement is project-wide, as it refers only to en.wiki. Note was on RfD, and that is also consensus. Only normal way to question that is to, FPS, ask a question on templates talk page, and ask community. As you see, there is at least 10+ editors who agree that we should use Kosovo note. And, at the end, i suppose that we should start this question on Byzantine Empire talk page, and ask should we use note on this page also. I dont see why we should not do that? Can you tell me, please? --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The TfD only decided on the question of whether or not to delete the template, not whether – and where – to make its use obligatory. If you claim there is a consensus to use it project-wide, on hundreds or perhaps thousands of pages, that requires a very strong, formal consensus procedure, not something cooked up between a handful of people on a single page. In the absence of such a procedure, yes, only local consensus on each individual article counts. If you want an RfC on Talk:Byzantine empire, feel free to open one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And what kind of consensus is enough? Can you tell me where was some form a project-wide consensus? Is there any new venue for that? If there is, please, point to me, i thought that agreement among all participants is enough. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And no, i dont need formal RfC on Talk:Byzantine empire, we can just talk like normal people do, and gain a consensus. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If what you're looking for is consensus that would be strong enough to justify imposing something on a large group of articles without consulting with local editors first in each case, it would minimally require a formal, centralized RfC procedure, well enough advertised in such a way that editors in all topic areas likely to be affected by the outcome had a chance to be aware of it and participate. Why are you asking me to point to such a consensus procedure? It was you who claimed there was a consensus, so it's your responsibility to produce one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, that is just a useless bureaucracy that stops us from making a good wiki. Anyway, i will give you consensus you need. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please

Avoid being blocked. Take this problem with 108 elsewhere, reverting isn't the way to solve it and you might both end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to file the SPI tomorrow. I consider the identity with Deucalionite to be painfully obvious, and it must be so to everybody who knew him back in the day, even though assembling the relevant links has been a pain and rather time-consuming – which is the only reason I didn't get around filing the SPI earlier. Still, I believe it's obvious enough that I can legitimately invoke the 3RR exemption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FP, you can find old 3RR cases involving Deucalionite with this search. Deucalionite has erased some past controversies from his talk page, but you can see most of them in this version from 30 January, 2010. It's possible you could find a behavioral rationale for User:No. 108 being the same as Deucalionite if you compared some of his edits. A New Jersey location would be logical based on the IPs included in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deucalionite/Archive. The old SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deucalionite may be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I've got most of the relevant links gathered now. I'm sure I know a lot more about Deucalionite than I would like to. It's all very annoying. I have to go out now, but as I said, I'll file the SPI tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see this editor write 'humbly', I think 'arrogantly'. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Games

Hello Future Perfect. I was wondering if I could seek the opinion of an uninvolved editor with a knowledge of Greek. Two Greek editors are attempting to insert the modern Greek name of the Olympics into the first line of the article on Olympic Games, on the grounds that they're "giving the etymology" and "this is the original term". I don't normally consult outside editors like this, but the linguistic claims are so odd, and superficially credible (e.g. the ancient name "ta Olympiada"/"ho Olympikos agon" is simply "another tense" of the modern Greek "Olympiakoi agones"), that someone really is needed to arbitrate. Many thanks and please don't worry if you're too busy/uninterested. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 07:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing that. I agree, by the way, definition (b) in your comment isn't viable and the article is confused. References to the "original games" and their "revival" are anachronistic. Unfortunately I seemed to be in a very small minority of editors and it seemed easier to accept the premise. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 08:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_review_from_uninvolved_editor Nobody Ent 12:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Thank you for your warning. I've stated my reasoning on the talk page and asked for uninvolved editors to review my assessments, if they feel it to be necessary. Clover345 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

harrisment

I have been harrisied for a long time by noveangles. I mean no ill will. I have been told that editors advice on wikipedia is sometimes wrong. sometimes very wrong. you can write what you want about aspartame but you should understand that others may not always agree. They may feel that a article with controversy in the title should tell both sides. But you do not. It is wrong for you to punish editors for disagreeing with you. I have never even posted to the article but have always posted to the talk page. Why am I such a threat?

  sorry for the lateness, sometimes i am very busy.

Quione (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

AN

You are mentioned on WP:AN. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Aminur Rahman,Khosru

Dear sir, You have edited the page.You have reinstalled the page again.What I can do.You are doing this all.I do not have even a simpel right to edit an article with references.This I do not expect from an Editor Like you. I thought you accepted and you reinstall the article.Now I am seing you are reverting the page.Please tellme what should I do.Even in the revert false and informations are given which are not at all the subject matter of the article. Please advice me what to do.I shall do exactly what you want. Regards --Frankfurt55 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid there isn't really anything you can do. Because you came here to Wikipedia with the wrong purpose from the start. The only reason you are here is to promote Mr Khosru. But we here on Wikipedia do not want editors who only want to promote one thing. If this is your purpose, we will have to ask you to go away. Because it is quite evident that this person really isn't notable, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

By the way, could you please clarify what your relation to Mr Khosru is? Are you Mr Khosru? Or a relative of his, or a friend? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 12 August 2012 (U

My Answer

Its not true that I came here to Promote Mr.Khosru,I have tried to edit Bangladesh Liberation war in various ways.Because I was a freedom fighter during Liberation war of Bangladesh.Secondly my Masters Degree is based on Liberation of Bangladesh.I have also written many articles in Bangladesh Newspaper on liberation war of Bangladesh.I am not Master of all but about liberation war of Bangladesh I can contribute a lot to wikipedia.Thats my subject and I know many facts and have sound knowledge on liberation chapter.Its my subject of Interest. This is due to my long time study on that Subject.In June 2012,while reading Wikipedia I have noticed the factual error of Operation Jackpot on Mongla and I sent an e mail to Wikipedia head office who adviced me to edit the error.I did that with refrences,then I edited Bangladesh Liberation war Air Force actvties,where the factual errors are yet there.Its not true the Indian Air Force alone took part in Liberation war of Bangladesh.During this edit you warnned me first not to edit article with poor sources.But I edited the article as per Wikipedia rules.You can see the You tube Interview of ATN Bangla TV of 2009 right now.Please go to you tube and write Capt.Akram Interview you will see the interview in 3 parts.The Wikipedia editing and sources rule says categorically that TV Interview which are out dated can be taken as Source.Furtrher more a Military Persons who received highest Military Award can also taken as reference.I am sure you remeber also that due my comments in your page you blocked me and Editor Adita Kabir posted my Edit to my talk page.Which is still in my talk page.But after that I apologise to you personally and by email. Back to your question, I am not Mr.Khosru,Nor I am his friend or I am also not related to him.He is very well known Marine Commando in Bangladesh who came on Bangladesh TV several times and under his command Mongla was operated on 15th August 1971.If you wish I can send my passport photo copies to prove I am not Aminur Rahman:khosru.I know you are German speaking person,I live in Frankfurt for last 30 years and in Germany you can not hide your identity.I shall give you all kind of acess to make an inquiry about me.Only you have to accept that and inquir about me. I have sound study on liberation war of Bangladesh ,I can categorically assure you the fact that Mr.Aminur Rahman.Khosru was the commander of the Operation Jackpot Mongla.There are many books with ISBN Numbers which says Aminur Rahman,Khosru Commanded Mongla Operation on 15th Aug,1971.I can also send you copies of those books either for your kind review.In that way he is a Notable person as per article 5 of Military personals Biography of Wikipedia.This all I learnt while I was blocked.Its the duty of both of all of us to fight for truth and I am doing that.For my mistake I apologise to you but for article I am sure I am right. I know you are not some how happy on me.If you ask me to leave Wikipedia,I shall go away.But you as most known Admin should not have rservation on a particular person,you must depend on the facts and sources.You became angry on me and now you are not accepting any references from my side.You should be more open and we expect from you inspiration and advises. I am not vast learned person like you,often persons like me make mistakes,it should be your duty to advise me in right way. I wrote you earlier too that I am too much sorry and I already apologise to you.I can only contribute in Bangladesh Liberation war beside this my knowledge in other subject are not very sound.I do not want to promote some one but reader should know the fact.Does not matter after how many days or years,the fact must come out.A vast learned person like you should admit the matter . I promise to you if after your inquiry,if it is detrmined that I was wrong than I am ready to take any punishment given by you.But before inquiry you can not say its not true.If you that,I can not stop that but it is not wise decession from your side.You never asked for the prove only you reverted the edits.If edit is not allowed then why is the edit option are there?But for me you have created other rules.Ok ,I will accept your rules since I am a poor person. If this is not allowed or if you dislike me please tell me I shall go away.Just let me know what I have to I will do that.Once again I apologise to you. I wish your sucess and best regars, Frankfurt55

If you are not Mr Khosru, why did you sign with his name here [28][29]? And why does your user name consist of his birth year and place of residence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE AMINUR RAHMAN KHOSRU

Dear sir, You wrote in my talk page any one can edit page.Now while I am trying to edit this page you reverting this page.Better tell me not to write the truth. You must check the sources first.Why I should not be allowed to discuss this in that page?I am wrttting the truth.A discssion is allowed.You have changed the article to a singel line.Its not the main article.Please keep the main article and than ask for discussion.Its the law of Wikipedia.You being an Admin should advise us about the regulation.I am appealing you to allow me to write the truth. Regards, --Frankfurt55 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy

		A beer on me!
		So, nach dem ganzen Balkantheater gibt's hier erstmal was zur Entspannung. Ganz ohne Warnhinweise! Prost. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ja, danke, das brauch ich jetzt wohl. Sorry, wenn das eben so klang, als würde ich dich gleich mit angiften. Ich muss zugeben, dieser WhiteWriter-Typ raubt mir schon ziemlich die Geduld. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

blp question

There's a section on the Pussy Riot talkpage Talk:Pussy Riot entitled "Gang Bang, offending the Patriarch and blasphemy", in which there doesn't seem to be any reliable ref for what's being said, the event taking place, etc. Isn't this material a blp violation itself, and shouldn't it be removed? I usually don't do much with blps, so I thought I'd ask an admin. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 07:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please teach me the blocked reason

I was blocked on "Liancourt Rocks". But I cannot understand the mean "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality". Couldn't I write anything to the talk page? I'm JP, and I cannot understand the difficult words. Please teach me on the easy English.Wingwrong (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you say anything ? I cannot continue to write the wiki because I cannot understand that issue. Please teach me quickly.Wingwrong (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I could understand. Perhaps, It's WP:EDITWAR. Therefore, you do not also write of the "violation reason" in the "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring", in addition, I was eliminated I did not violate the 3RR, you were suddenly eliminated me for 24h. Indeed, I had gone to "undo" by mistake. I will be careful from now on.Wingwrong (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep the drama too yourself

1) The picture has been on for over a month and it is BS that people want to go and randomly tag crap.

2) It meets the criteria, maybe not in your personal opinion but it does so it does not need to be tagged.

3) I am sick and tired of people starting drama with me every time I come back on here so keep it to yourself and leave the tag of the picture. It is a false tag you are posting and if you are going to do it to mine do it to the one on Pokémon Gold and Silver and if you do not back off the one on Pokémon Yellow cause that is BS that it is okay for one and not okay for another.

Thank you and have a nice day and remember keep your drama to yourself. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the parallel case of Pokémon Gold and Silver, because the image used in that article shows you precisely why the one here really is replaceable: File:Lugia PT Cruiser.jpg is a free photograph. Somebody went and took a snapshot of such a car as he happened to see it in the street somewhere. Since that is possible, we cannot use a non-free publicity photograph from the company website instead. This is how our WP:NFC rules work. You may find them annoying, but these are fundamental principles of this project, and it's my task to uphold them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and since you have now started to revert-war to remove the deletion tag, against policy, what would you prefer, should I block you or should I just cut the process short and delete the image immediately? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

Hi,
Nice work on the disclaimer. It's everywhere. bobrayner (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there are loads of them. I really don't know how some people got it into their brains that these are obligatory all over the place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

SAQ sanctions

The WP:ARBSAQ#Discretionary sanctions issue has flared up again—sorry, but would you mind having a look at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and consider semiprotection for a week or so until the excitement dies down. The new account Paull Barlow (talk · contribs) needs to be blocked as a sock (although I've forgotten who it was who made usernames that imitated those of good editors—do not block User:Paul Barlow with one "l"!). Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This was all handled when the edit war was noticed. Nothing needed now thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made an enforcement request against the user responsible, whom you topic-banned. Perhaps you'd like to contribute something to the discussion. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kachaghakaberd

Why did you move this entry to "Qaxach Tower"? All the sources (including several English-language ones) used in the article use the name Kachaghakaberd. There are no sources at all for the name "Qaxach Tower". Would you please restore it to the Kachaghakaberd name. In my post made on 24 June I used the words "any further title moves on this article would be considered controversial". That, under Wikipedia guidelines, should have required you to propose a name move before going ahead and just doing it. I don't see why restoring the article history also meant you could not have kept the Kachaghakaberd name. Meowy 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are so familiar with move procedures, I am sure you will have no difficulty understanding my explanation I gave here [30]. When an admin fixes a cut-n-paste move, it is customary to restore the status quo ante. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I obviously have read your explanation made there before I posted here - I did refer to your explanation in my post above. So there was no need to appear to act arrogant by giving a link to it. But did you bother to read my move "would be considered controversial" text before making them move? Or did you read it and just ignore it? It is NOT customary to restore an old name if that name change would be considered controversial. Or are you not so familiar with move procedures? Meowy 21:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you simply do the obvious thing and file a move request, instead of wasting your breath wikilawyering here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am aware that I am wasting my breath here! Do you think I expected you to act on my reasonable request? I hoped you might, it would have taken you but a moment to have done it (and taken far less time that you spent here responding to me and refusing to act) - but I never even slightly expected it. Meowy 21:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair-use tagging for File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg

Best I can tell, Red Dragon (spacecraft) doesn't actually exist yet, so I don't expect a free image could be made for that vehicle that would represent it well. Could you clarify your NFCC#1/replaceability tagging of it? I've nerfed the tag to put the deletion on hold temporarily... DMacks (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

About your message to wfumie

Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I don't think my edit at Liancourt Rocks has any tendency. AND I don't think my English is poor and I don't know your English is very good, so please do not write any stupid rude message again. 18 Aug 2012

Your edits at Liancourt Rocks have the appearance of being heavily tendentious; moreover, many of them are in poor English. Please propose your changes on the talk page first to allow discussion and corrections before editing the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good decision

I have been away for sometime from wiki-editing, and came back today to see your recent change at Operation Jackpot. I believe it was the right one, and glad this was done. Thanks a lot! Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Input on Tenedos/Bozcaada

Since I really appreciated some of your comments on earlier naming discussions and we need more input, I'd like to invite you to help us out on another naming debate on Talk:Tenedos. You ended your point last time with the claim "I was open to being convinced otherwise, if there had been evidence that English usage has decisively shifted towards the Turkish name when it comes to present-day contexts." I think the evidence is almost overwhelming that this has happened in the past decade. Please see my initial post for the evidence and I'd greatly appreciate your comments if you have time, no matter what they may end up being. Just really think we can get this right. Cheers! AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation corpus test

Hi, I copy-pasted your corpus test (with a change or two) and I added it to the evidence for lower-case at the Beatles mediation page. If you have the time, maybe you wouldn't mind double checking/updating everything to be sure I havn't misrepresented the test in any way. Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OGL files

I see you re-deleted File:Lord Hill Minister.jpg and File:Nick Gibb Minister.jpg, are they the exact same files as File:Lord Hill 2.jpg and File:Nick Gibb 2.jpg? They appear to be under the OGL despite what the source says, for reasons I explained to you. I'm still waiting for the others. —innotata 16:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reuploaded most, but I still need your help with File:Michael Gove Minister.jpg, File:Sarah Teather Minister.jpg, File:Tim Loughton Minister.jpg: I can't find the files. —innotata 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you respond? I don't want to have to bug you with the same message later. —innotata 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Chrysis over

Look over there. Uncle G (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg

You tagged this file with {{subst:rfu}} long ago and I noticed that the file was in a red category. I took it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 21#File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg to have it settled. You may wish to comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol

Lots of confusion but definitely great sense of humour. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the Turkish media didn't even get that Greek crank's story straight. The Turkish newspapers were all reporting Chardavellas was claiming that Greek agents killed those commandos in revenge. What Chardavellas actually did claim was something entirely different but even more bizarre: the Turkish "deep state" did it, as a cover-up. Δηλαδή, άλλα λέει η θειά μου, άλλα ακούν τ'αυτιά μου. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol. I think both versions are correct given that the Turkish παρακράτος employs Greek agents of course. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What was that ancient Greek letter you once wrote an FA on? PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Future did, but definitely it wasn't me. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it was FPAS and IIRC, it was written very quickly and in spite. Maybe it wasn't FA, perhaps GA or DYK. I can't quite remember.PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of Sampi, though it never actually went for those accolades. It was just at DYK. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's it! It could be GA with very little work, methinks. Got any more obscure Greek letter articles in your hat of tricks. PumpkinSky talk 14:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I put most of the other obscure stuff together at Archaic Greek alphabets at some point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you know old Germanic Rune scripts? PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly well, I have to admit, but I could probably dig up some stuff if need be. Any particular article in special need of attention? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I just wondered if you could do something with a rune article like you did with Sampi.PumpkinSky talk 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN image

Hello! Please note that the idea of making the image non-static has been discussed and rejected numerous times. That this is known to cause technical issues (both on the main page and on other pages on which the template is transcluded) is one of the main reasons.

The concern that you cited (the unintended association of a notorious individual with someone else) has been raised in the discussions, with no consensus that it's serious problem (due to the image title and "pictured" text). —David Levy 12:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what discussion that was, but to my mind it's still inexcusable. The image has no title displayed to the reader, and the "pictured" note (in small print, several inches further down on the screen, in the middle of some paragraph) is just far too far away to be of use. If there are technical problems, then the stupid templates need to be fixed.

Images belong next to the stuff they belong to, period. That's simply common sense, and there cannot possibly be any rational excuse for doing anything else – just because we are technically too stupid to get the templates right is most certainly not one. It is confusing as hell to readers at the best of times, and downright offensive in cases like today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The image has no title displayed to the reader,

Both the "title" and "alt" attributes are defined, so I assume that you're referring to something else (an always-visible caption, perhaps).

If there are technical problems, then the stupid templates need to be fixed.

If you know how to accomplish that, I'm sure that the community would be appreciative.

Note, however, that this isn't the static image's sole justification. Many editors simply prefer the status quo (for aesthetic reasons and such).

To be clear, I'm only noting (not defending) the discussions' outcome. Of the various design possibilities proposed, I thought that a couple seemed sensible, but consensus for change was never reached.

Images belong next to the stuff they belong to, period. That's simply common sense, and there cannot possibly be any rational excuse for doing anything else

Others disagree. You aren't the first to deem their opinions irrational, which tends to discourage constructive discourse. Without mutual respect and collaboration, there's little hope of establishing consensus for any sort of solution.

In the future, if such an issue arises (and must be acted upon immediately, due to WP:BLP-related concerns or another reason), please simply blank the "image=" parameter and remove the "(pictured)" text. It's okay if ITN occasionally has no image. —David Levy 14:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Jessica Nicole Ghawi.jpg

Hello I Noticed your CSD-F11 Tag on the file above

Like Mentioned in the Copyright Tag it's a handout Picture it s used by the general news media agency's world wide

I picked one source where "handout" is stated http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=4534821 I also Believe this picture also meets WP:NFC (No free equivalent)

However I did not find a Statement stating that this file is free of use but I assume it since the family co-operated with the Media! Thanks Fox2k11 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for opinion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2

Hi, I've requested to renew authorization for my bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot 2. You recently participated in the discussion about it at ANI so I wanted to invite your opinion. Thank you! Dcoetzee 02:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of LOST screenshot

Is there an AfD where the proposed deletion of the LOST screenshot I uploaded can be discussed? I've simply replaced the previous screenshot (dating from 2008), and used the current file upload wizard, so the WP:FUR came from it. If the previous screenshot was OK, I see no reason why the updated replacement should be deleted. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 08:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Sage94

User talk:Sage94 has requested unblock on the condition they do not upload any more images - would you agree to that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead. I found his non-image contributions rather low quality too, but not reaching the degree of crappiness that would justify a long block, so I guess an unblock under that condition would be reasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on his contributions too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OGL files, posting again

Posting again on the OGL files I still need help on: Are File:Lord Hill Minister.jpg and File:Nick Gibb Minister.jpg the exact same files as File:Lord Hill 2.jpg and File:Nick Gibb 2.jpg? What about File:Michael Gove Minister.jpg, File:Sarah Teather Minister.jpg, and File:Tim Loughton Minister.jpg? I'm not an admin, I can't see them. I would like a response, at least to know you'll get to them. —innotata 16:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Arie Luyendyk file(s)

While I recognised that there were contradictory licenses on File:Arie Luyendyk Jr.jpg and File:Race Car Driver Arie Luyendyk, Jr.jpg, I had assumed from Netscope's bona fide response to my query that he had obtained permission, and merely required instruction on the appropriate processes for notifying OTRS. Despite the deletion of File:Arie Luyendyk Jr.jpg, I've recommended that he ought to continue with the procedure regarding copyright permission. Cheers, Mephistophelian (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

Before I forget, I'd appreciate it if a sysop could revdel this. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

Ah, I hadn't seen he was discussing it with you. Your advice is of course correct – if he can clarify the permission via OTRS, all is fine no matter which of the two file versions survives; without such, the non-free tag is the safer one for the time being. (BTW, I've blocked that vandal IP.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Qwyrxian (talk)

Bulgaria

• Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On my talk page, an editor has asked that I renew my semi-protection of Bulgaria. (The protection log has 20 entries since 2006). You've played some role with this article in the past. Do you have a suggestion of what to do? The nuclear option is to notify a bunch of people of the discretionary sanctions. That is, the ones who are reverting the dates in the infobox without waiting for consensus. A more mundane option would be full protection. Semi-protection would stop the anonymous SPAs but not the registered SPAs. Do you have any suggestions? Would you like to take over the problem yourself? WP:AE is another possibility, because edit-warring with a nationalist motive would be considered abuse under the provisions of WP:ARBMAC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Immortale and Aspartame controversy

Hey FP,

I noticed that you previously topic banned Immortale from aspartame relate articles per WP:ARBPS. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Michael_Newton_reference to determine whether further sanctions are necessary? Thanks. Sædon^talk 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange linguistics article

Hello, FP! Take a look at Lexis (linguistics). This article seems to have multiple problems -- it's really an essay more than an article, it is taking a particular point of view, it is not very well written, and it incorporates much material (e.g. on KWIC) that is not really central and in any case better covered elsewhere. I wonder, too, if chunks of it aren't plagiarized.

It appears to be an attempt present a Hallidayan approach to linguistic theory, but it doesn't really do a very good job of that.... I am not sure there is anything salvageable from the article -- I am tempted to simply redirect to Lexicon, which should probably mention the term "Lexis" and reference Systemic functional linguistics. I don't know the literature -- is "lexis" a term only used by Hallidayans? --Macrakis (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have added a bunch of material to Greek words in English and it could use a review by someone competent -- want to take a look? I think it could use some reorganization with the new material, but I'm going to leave it alone for a few weeks to 'rest' (in my mind) and give other editors a chance to work on it.... --Macrakis (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hallo Fut.Perf.
I have a question: in the article about Mussolini someone placed the image of him and his mistress in the morgue of Milan.I did not notice this picture, but a couple of days ago an user complained about it (actually it is not for soft guts :-)), so I removed it. Behind the removal there are two reasons:

• WP:PROFA

• This picture is placed near that showing the bodies of Mussolini, his mistress and other Gerarchi hanging in Piazzale Loreto. I think that in order to show the atmosphere of those days one is enough.

Of course I have been reverted at once, :-) and now there is a Thread on the talk page. I would like to know if such issues should be resolved there, or if there is another place to discuss conflicts arising between the lack of Censorship in Wikipedia and the possibility of hurting people. Moreover, I noticed that you have also edits on Mussolini, so your opinion is welcome. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Heads up about Twiter is the best/Lakshya (razor) et al

Hello, I've just blocked another sockpuppet of this user, Sept collines sont sur le dessus (talk · contribs). Graham87 15:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA).

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ahmad Shah Massoud

Please stop editwarring on this article. Your OR has been discussed and rejected on the talk page. Also stop making personal attacks in your edit summary's. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cut it out. Go away. If you want this solved, I told you what to do: find some means of dispute resolution that does not involve me having to talk with you. In the meantime, I will do what has to be done to protect that article, until such time as you both will be finally banned, which is the only positive outcome this could possibly have. Also, please refrain from using that annoying signature on my page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Message delivery

Please see:

• User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Message from Flugalarm
• User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Further Message from Flugalarm to Fut.Per.at Sunshine

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please review English Language, here, thanks!--Lucky102 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WARNING Troika page

Your recent edits on the Troika page constitute vandalism. Unless you have any valid arguments/sources to deny the fact that the word troika is Bulgarian as well and that it is used in Bulgaria, then stop your reverts. Ximhua (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been warned ... woe betide the editor who attempts to suppress encyclopedic additions like that! How was Corinth? Did you run into Ἐννοσίγαιος?  ^davidiad_.:τ 02:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

English Language

Please review this for me please, thanks!--Lucky102 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed/An edit-warrior with multiple sockpuppets

Multiple IP socks edit-warring on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanis%C5%82aw_Jerzy_Lec&curid=1069037&action=history. Total refusal to discuss anything. He has a new IP address every day.--Galassi (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look

Hi there, Do you remember me? We had exchanged views on the Arbcom decision on India-Pakistan (discretionary sanctions). I just left a post on Elockid's talk page, but realized soon after that he hasn't edited WP since 2 September. Could you please take a look at the post? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet advice requested

KlickitatGlacier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet; his most recent post indicates that he's almost certainly one of the banned users from Wikipediocracy [31]. I don't know who the sockmaster is, though I suspect it's probably User:Vigilant or User:Thekohser. Any suggestions? Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting rollback permission

Dear Fut. Perf.:

I am requesting WP:RBK permission. I often patrol changes and sometimes see the need to rollback. What more information would you like me to provide? Thanks for your consideration. Argos'Dad 15:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done :-) Use it wisely. I suppose you are familiar with rollback policy, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am familiar with the policy. Argos'Dad 16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lekythion

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It got the quirky slot, cool! PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of Sadiq Khan.M

User:Sadiq Khan.M, whom you block a month or so ago for copyright violations, might be ready to return to the community. His latest unblock request seems to suggest that he's - finally - got it. I'm putting the unblock on hold whilst awaiting commentary from you and/or Boing, given the history on the page I don't want to unblock him unilaterally myself. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 10:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't thrilled with the quality of his non-image contributions either, but if you feel he's honestly got the message now about how copyright works, I guess we might give it another try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He's loose - I assume you'll be keeping an eye on his edits as well, please feel free to reblock if you see him stem out of line again. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Euzen

After two long blocks he still can't stop himself. From users patrolling articles related to the Albanian nation to the French General prooves rubbish the coffe-table books accusation. Having to constantly report him only to have him back a few weeks later is getting rather tiresome.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw do you want to try to rewrite Serbs, Montenegrins and Bosnians in the Greek Revolution (1821) before I take it to AfD? Essentially, it is a compilation of all the theories he's been POV pushing for the last couple of years[32]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why it should be "put to rest"

What did you mean when you said "Please put this to rest now."? It will "rest" at "Tenedos". Chrisrus (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, for the time being, I guess so. Your point being? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So you are in favor of it "resting" there? You are against the move? Are you trying to get us all to drop it and walk away, leaving it at Tenedos? Chrisrus (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What does my opinion have to do with anything? Personally, I'm actually quite sympathetic to the case for a move, but what matters here is that, given the current state of the debate, simply having one poll immediately after the other for months on end is not going to resolve anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide me a link or links to guidelines or policies or whatever explaining why blocking that request for comment was the right thing to do. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:DEADHORSE, for a start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. It is clear to you that the time has come for us to walk away and admit defeat. It is clear that we have lost. This is your point. So you are, in fact, trying to get us all to drop it and walk away, leaving it at Tenedos. They have won, in your informed opinion. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they have "won"; I'm saying the debate is obviously stuck, and you're not going to get it unstuck by repeating the same thing all over again for the third time in a row. I can understand you find the situation unsatisfying; sometimes Wikipedia processes do get bogged down on the "wrong" solution, and sometimes it is simply necessary to leave them there for a while; those are the facts. If you want to hear my ideas about how this could actually be brought forward, see the latest thread on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So your purpose was to leave things in "the 'wrong' solution" for awhile. In this case, it is necessary to leave things there for a while. This is "good". Is that correct? And how is this advice as to how to bring this forward, why does this not contradict your "deadhorse" advice? Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre

Are you really still bearing a grudge after failing to get the picture of HMS Conqueror deleted? Really man let it go, its was FOUR years ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, I am not bearing you a grudge. That is exactly why I, personally, would feel completely at ease acting as an uninvolved administrator with respect to your disputes over the Falklands – about which, I swear, I am as unbiased as can be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear to me that you do. Twice now you've weighed in suggesting sanctions against me, when it is readily apparent to everyone else I'm not the problem. Once I would have dismissed as an error of judgement as I did sincerely consider you as fair, now I am far from convinced. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Trinity Christian School (New Jersey) New Gym.jpg

Not sure if you saw... I left you a message at File talk:Trinity Christian School (New Jersey) New Gym.jpg. I would appreciate it if you would address your concerns there. More information about the image is at the talk page. Dplcrnj (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Added Extra Sections an your talkpage

Sorry I accidentally tripled what I wanted to write on your talk page I already fixed it. Sorry for the inconvenience.Dplcrnj (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping us keep the peace and for being a voice of reason at a heated mediation. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC

Hi Future. I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly versions in Greece article

I had a reason to be silly: I was editing a silly edit in a rush. (Let one person less read this in WP, hurry... :-) Thanks for your handling of the POV pushing. I liked your edit more than mine. Best. --E4024 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

disruption discussion

I'm not sure if you saw this. I'd like to hear your opinion about what am I supposed to do the next time DIREKTOR pulls something like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Om Prakash Chautala

Hi there Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thanks for your changes to Om Prakash Chautala. However, Manmohandeswal (talk · contribs) is continuing to add the same content repeatedly to the article. I wonder what can be done. Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Die Young

Hey! Can you please unlock Die Young (Kesha song) from re-creation? Thanks a lot! :) It's been officially released for 3 days and has been hitting the iTunes charts very quickly after that. A handful of professional music sites have already reviewed the song, so there's no doubt about its notability. Seeing it still not having a proper Wiki page is frankly quite unbelievable for me. Brownchild1995 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! There are a few of us interested in editing Die Young (Kesha song), but it was deleted and protected. Would it be possible to have this page undeleted or, at the very least, unlocked so we can recreated? The topic has definitely achieved notability since it's deletion and has already charted in Belgium. Here is a list of reliable sources we would like to use to fix up this article: source list. We would also like to redirect Die Young (Ke$ha song) (also sysop-locked) to Die Young (Kesha song), as per the discussion on Talk:Kesha and various deleted talk pages linked to Die Young (Kesha song). Please get back to ASAP. Thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Replacing the Karl Roelof's Profile Picture File that you deleted

I beg your pardon, but I am highly offended that you deleted the picture I had posted for Karl Roelofs on his Wikipedia page. There had yet been a consensus as to the matter regarding the license. For starters, I did not obtain any resolution regarding what sort of license would be necessary so such a picture like that could be allowed to be used on Wikipedia. You deleted the article before I got an answer! That has made me VERY cross! OtakuMan (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about [[:File:Karl Roelofs' Zojoi Profile Picture.jpg]. I'm sorry but this matter was very clear. It's an open-and-shut case of applying our policies. People at WP:NFC have been telling you what that policy is, and I'm applying it. An image like this needs to be released under a fully free license, allowing free reuse for any purpose by anybody. By the way, you also said on the NFC talkpage that you thought this policy was somehow new and it wasn't yet in place when you edited earlier. That is mistaken; the policy has been essentially unchanged for ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Jared Huffman

Hi, I think the photo currently on Jared Huffman is better than the one I put up there last week. I made sure the new one is categorized correctly in the Wikicommons. I don't understand the kerfuffle with the other editor, but no worries !! The only thing is I think he reappeared as an anonymous account. You might want to take a look at the Jared Huffman history page & at The user contributions for 188.221.104.80 Thank you for your contributions, they all make the project better! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes must burn in hell

As you say in your infobox, sorry user page, Future, they must; if not, we will... Please join the discussion about the use, form and contents of an infobox here. Thank you and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is a report at WP:AE with which you have been involved. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a fan

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so they say. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the silly sock season is on us again. I'm too lazy right now to figure out which of the many central-Asia sockmasters this one was again, but there's evidently been some backstory on those articles. Thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, probably Qatarihistorian (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification request

Could you note the outcome of Wikipedia:AE#London_Victory_Celebrations_of_1946 at article's talk page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the restriction warning still shows up in the editing mode (pagenotice?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance, please, at -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija#Lede_sentence

WhiteWater has now reverted for the fourth time. I would like an Administrator to weigh in. Thank you and apologies in advance for this ... crap. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWater?? You are sockpupppet, Ham! I have recognise you now indefinitely per this! --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You speaks in riddles. I asking you explain what you means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, FPaS, i will send you a e-mail. And will ask for 3O about this question from above. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This might require an admin with less-than-fleeting attention span

This drama is mostly about edit warring, but it looks like long-term POV pushing may be at work too. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Overarguing at the Beatles mediation

FTR, I do hear you, and I will take your advice as best I can without compromising myself. I would be so bold; however, to point out/claim that my efforts at the mediation will eventually save countless hours for other editors long-term, as this situation was nowhere near resolution three months ago. As it is now, we may earn a several year repreve. Further, I want you to know that all I ever wanted to do was get Paul McCartney through FAC without being bothered by the Big Letterists, that's it. I never intended to put an end to this dispute, or even to fight it at all. This dispute was forced on me as I assume you remember, and I was not looking for a 4 month mediation to affirm my right to follow the Wikipedia MoS, and every other known MoS.

One could argue, that a point often lost in the overly intellectualised discussions on editor retention, that the extreme tedium required to follow basic style rules greatly contributes to reasonable copyeditors coming to the realisation that Wikipedia is a bit dysfunctional at times, and far too difficult to accomplish the most basic of tasks. (It once took me more than two weeks to get one sentence changed to reflect well-known facts). Anyway, thanks again for all your help and guidance at the mediation. I would suggest; however, that coming into threads with a pre-school teacher/parental attitude of "shut-up, enough already" is not an effective or positive way to deal with artistic adults who have contributed so much to this project, and that in general, the discouragment of discussion does not have a positive net effect on Wikipedia's culture. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New section, image use

Hi, thanks for your attention. I am about this File:Protest on Baghramyan avenue for Vahe Avetyan.jpg, there's not free content in commons or media, just because, this is not another protest. How do you think, can I use electoral protest photograph in the article instead of this one? So, please, stay objective. Also, maybe I'm dummy, but I did'nt find the point of your message on my talk page. Arantz (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid a non-free picture won't be useable at all here. The fact that there were protests can be covered in text alone, if it is relevant to the article. It is not in need of visual illustration to be understood; therefore, a non-free image would fail our policies. The article currently doesn't even talk about these protests, which is another reason for making the image untenable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, friend, I'm not English master speaker, and that takes some time for me to cover a topic. But that's in progress. Arantz (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Slavic people of Greece

Dear fellow wikipedian, slavic dialects of Greece can not be considered as a language. I see you have disagreements, can you please tell me with what exactly you do not agree so we can discuss it here. Thank you. Proudbulgarian (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

First, stop edit-warring. When people revert your edits as tendentious, you don't re-revert right away and then demand that the other side discusses things; you wait for discussion first. Second, if several other editors have been reverting multiple edits of yours, you don't react by accusing them of vandalism; instead, what you should do is to consider whether those other editors might be right and you actually are being tendentious. (Hint: experience tells me there has never been an editor named "Proud-[nationality]" on this project who wasn't.) Third, your edit to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia introduced the tendentious label "The language of the FYROM" instead of the proper standard language name; from that point onwards there really is nothing else worth discussing with you. Fourth, of course "Slavic dialects of Greece" is not "a language" (in the sense of the "name" of a language); it's a descriptive phrase pointing to a specialized article we have on the topic; as such it is perfectly appropriate for that place in the infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Perfect,
I see you insist to divide the conversation on points lets start with the first one, my edits are related with to the factology where I put sources and the scientific notation as it is in this case. Second, my posts are edited by two people - one of them is tendentiously editing most of my contributions and the other one is you. Third, can you please tell me what is the standard language name, because in my knowledge the standard name used by the UN, EU and NATO is the one I used. And another funny thing... isn't it a bit cheeky to mention it when you consider "slavic dialects of Greece" as a language? About four - this is absolutely tendentious position, this "classification" if I can even use that word here exist only in Greece, but if you really believe in your words I would suggest you to change the name of the article about the Greek language to "Indo-European dialects of Greece".
Yours sincerely,
Proudbulgarian (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Proudbulgarian, FutPerf didn't say he think "slavic dialects of Greece" is a language; he said the exact opposite. He only said it was a topic with an article on it. As for the standard name of "the language of FRYOM", here on Wikipedia, it is "Macedonian". This name may not be accepted by the EU, the UN or NATO. That's fine; we're not bound by their conventions. (I should point out that int'l organizations aren't a very good source for either neutrality or common name usage; their language tends to be a sort of "politicalese" just due to the nature of their work.) I'll let FutPerf answer any other parts of your question needing an answer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

where standard tools for automatic tagging are much less flexible as our Twinkle

Ref. Special:Permalink/517037318#New upload wording

I know our tools aren't the same as Twinkle, however did you try

• commons:Help:QuickDelete
• commons:Help:Gadget-GalleryDetails
• commons:Help:VisualFileChange.js

If you miss something Twinkle has, please let me know. BTW, if AzaToth, Amalthea or you like to port Twinkle to Commons, I won't oppose adding it to the gadgets. -- Rillke (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Example-serious.jpg

Do you know what the purpose of this image is supposed to be? It seems to be a dupe of File:Example.jpg. I see that you've been editing File:Example-serious.jpg lately, so you might know. Also, it says that the image shouldn't be moved to Commons because it isn't useful for Commons, but it's already there. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know really, now that you mention it. I just noticed that a newbie was overwriting it with a new file of his own and I reverted that. It's in legitimate use as a placeholder/sample image on a couple of pages, but I don't really see why Example.jpg couldn't be used there just as well. No objection from me if somebody were to replace it in those pages and orphan it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pushing it, again.

Any opinion on this ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Banned User Socks

While I appreciate the advice, I assume it comes with a confirmed SPI on the IP you blocked? Or was it blocked as an open proxy? (I had no reason to check prior to my response.) But no offence intended, its a bit pointless asking me to do something I am unable to confirm beforehand as I have no idea who the IP was, and am subsequently unable to communicate with them as you have already blocked the IP. A simple message 'This IP has been blocked as a sock of X' would have sufficed. Unless its your advice I dont converse with random IP's who show up at my talkpage at all? Because thats not going to happen. Either way as you have read the exchange you know I have no intention of getting involved in someone elses obsession. My advice to the (unknown) IP can be equally applied to almost everyone else at that AE thread. The deceitful and manipulative nature of some of the allegations there are amazing in their tenacity. I would rather put my arm in a rabid dogs mouth than get involved with that on-wiki. Since you seem to be looking into it however - take a very close look at the timings of the events. I am available via email if you want further opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you Chinese, why you edit my hometown page? Wuxi County

????kongshengxin (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please note that you do not own any articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, however your recent image uploads and edits show that you might not be familiar with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. You should read our guidelines on WP:Galleries. And first of all we need evidence that the multiple images you recently uploaded to Wikipedia have really been taken by you (see your user talk page). De728631 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Bnncff: I removed those images from the gallery because it is inappropriate on Wikipedia and unencyclopedic to have pictures of identifiable private individuals displayed in this way, especially the one to which you added a highly insulting caption. (I'm not sure if you understand the implications of the term "Hoi polloi" in English.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See what is hoi polloikongshengxin (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's as I thought, a problem with your command of English. I know what that term means, but evidently you don't understand it fully. The phrase is almost invariably used in a pejorative sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I got from www.dictionary.com I believe that is PROPER ENGLISH...or you are speaking a slang in your own English dialect. And If identifiable private individuals displayed, how about the picture of HOI POLLOI? One Old Man, one child, they are private individuals too. And indeed Chongqing girls are the most beautiful girls in the whole China, U can ask this question from any Chinese, Then prove I am not telling a lie!kongshengxin (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not proper English to call people "hoi polloi". It is highly insulting, implying an attitude of upper-class arrogance against working class people. Also, independently of the caption, it is still inappropriate for Wikipedia to have photographs of random, identifiable non-notable private individuals displayed in articles about geographical places as if they were landmarks. That page is not your private photo gallery were you can have pictures of your girlfriend or whoever that young lady is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I get distasted! I guess you are a female...Jealous...And the picture of Hoi Polloi is the working classkongshengxin (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you happen to be mistaken about a number of things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I tell u the truth the others pictures I ask someone else to upload for me, it is from the same website www.cqwuxi.cn, if the author knows his or her pictures on the wikipedia, he or she would like to happy one week!kongshengxin (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Request regarding Berlin Victory Parade of 1945

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_114#Wrong_commons_description.3F_1946_Allied_Victory_Parade_in_Berlin you mentioned you found some German sources confirming that another parade took place there in 1946. Could I ask you to add at least a short referenced sentence to the 1945 parade article stating that fact? I don't read German, and I can't find any English source for that. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly check the sources for you, but I'm sure you are more qualified than I when it comes to turning that into an actual wording that makes sense in the context of your article. Unfortunately I can only see Google snippets of most of the sources. I guess this one is the best, but what I can see on p.303 is just that "units of all four allied powers" paraded on the Charlottenburger Chaussee, in front of the Brandenburg Gate, on the first anniversary of the German surrender on 8 May 1946. (The context seems to imply that this illustrates a state of affairs that was soon to change, probably referring to the later role of the Gate as a symbol of the Cold War rift between the allies, but I can't see the rest of the text.) this one has some interesting stuff about the photographer of that photo series, a "Jewish photographer Abraham Pisarek", who is said to have also created many other important historical photographs in Berlin at the time, among them the iconic photograph of the handshake between Wilhelm Pieck and Otto Grotewohl during the cration of the SED. This source also confirms that the 8 May 1946 parade was connected to the inauguration of the Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten). That's basically all I have at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence based on your findings here; feel free to adjust it. Also, if you could add a page number to the second source, it would be great. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement

[33]. You know, Mathsci posted comments in my section, instead of responding in his section as he's supposed to. So, he probably should have been blocked for disruption for not following board procedures. The problem is that you had already posted a response in my section, so he probably felt it was ok for him to do so. So, it's partly your fault that that thread turned into an impromtu debate because you didn't follow the rules. Now, I should be able to post a comment in my section without it being hatted or reverted, as you just did. I'm going to go back and leave a few sentences giving my opinion on recent events. Mathsci is free to respond and have the last word in his section and things can proceed with the enforcement request normally. If you could please refrain from intervention that makes things worse or contributes to an escalation, and as long as both me and him are following the rules, then there shouldn't be a problem. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This has very little to do with the formalities of who posts in what section. It has very much to do with people's obsessive inability to just shut the fuck up when their participation in something is obviously not helpful. I'm disappointed; I had really expected you to behave with a bit more maturity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand your frustration with Mathsci's conduct, but suggesting that he be blocked for posting in the wrong section is excessive. However, Future also shouldn't have removed your comment at AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on something you said on the enforcement page, and Future's comment above, plus Mathsci's post below, something clicked in my mind while I was out on my daily run about what actually took place here, and his posting in my section is evidence of it. I will post someting on the enforcement page as soon as I have time to get the diffs together. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are named in an Arbcom request

Here. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a question

Wouldn't it best if we really wanted Cla and Mathsci to indeed leave each other alone, that the one way interaction ban be made mutual? From everything that Mathsci's posing in there, think he needs to step back and put down the stick just like Cla needs to.. SirFozzie (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say to test that we first need to see how he behaves if and when he is finally left alone. If he misuses that then, we can still add something to the sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping to improve the Pezband page! Best, Chuck aka CStack3 CStack3 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you take a look?

Knitwitted apparently is searching for novel ways to disrupt in the SAQ area. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Line of Succession to the British throne

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Making contentious moves like this is highly disruptive. You clearly have not taken in all the things I have been saying this morning. Thorough consensus must take place before these major changes can be allowed to persist. Please stop edit-warring. Nocrowx (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Learn what vandalism is and what it is not. If this comes to blocking, you are running at least an equal risk, I can assure you. Making frivolous vandalism accusations is in fact in itself a blockable offense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not frivolous and I know very well what vandalism is, thank you very much. Who do you think you are?! It is you who has repeatedly tried to make major changes that only pertain to you viewpoint, whereas I have merely tried to revert the article back to what it previously was for a long time. So, I do hope that you realise you really are edit-warring and at risk of being blocked if you continue like this. Nocrowx (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We are at three reverts each, which is exactly equal. And no, since I am making edits in a good faith attempt at what I think is improving the article, my edits are not vandalism. Make that accusation once more and I really will ask for a block against you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And I am not acting in good faith?! That is the point you seem to be missing. I am trying to keep the article as it was because most people wont agree with your points of view. But if you think they will then you are more than welcome to try and find full colaboration. But ask yourself is it worth it when all you seem to want to do is omit stuff? What harm does it do for the people who want that info included in the article to just keep it the way it is?! Nocrowx (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said you were not acting in good faith. You are just edit-warring, and displaying what I still believe is a poor "owner"-like attitude. We are having a disagreement; I (exceptionally) found it necessary to go up to 3R; so did you. You seem to be systematically under-estimating or ignoring the number of people who have recently been arguing that the "Mrs" etc ought to be left out; calling the version you personally happen to prefer an established consensus version in the face of a clearly and consistently expressed opposition is the hallmark of the WP:OWN editor. By the way, I never proposed to omit valid information. The whole point about the "Mr" etc is that their information value is precisely zero, being as they are mere default titles, signifying nothing beyond the absence of any particular higher title and being otherwise borne by every person on earth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont have the time to keep arguing with you. You say it is exceptional for you to go to 3R, so I take it from that, you wont go up to 4R which would definately be grounds for blocking you. Nocrowx (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Some Important News about Operation Jackpot

Hello Fut.Perf. at Sunrise, I have studied a number of books and internet Website of Pakistan Defence Forum and Indian Defence Forum and also I read the book of of Mr.Sezan Mahmud OPERATION JACKPOT. Every where I noticed the fact that Mongla Operation was conducted by only 24 commandos and they blown six ships on 15th August 1971.I am seeking permission from you to edit this part.Other wise Wikipedia shall display wrong information. Best Regards, Flugalarm

THANKS FOR REVERTING

Hello Fut.Per. at Sunrise, In fact you are very very intlegent guy.You know all the facts.Thanks God you became an Admin.I congraculate you for your vast and wide knowledge.As I see you have informations on many things.I want to decleare you as dictonary of informations of 100 years. People are aware of your actions.I thank you very much to revert the change again. I wish your sucess. Regards--Flugalarm (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh of the week

Hi Fut. I've a little belatedly featured a remark of yours here on my page. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

Help needed

Hello Future! I've been engaged in a weird dispute with ZomRe (talk · contribs) at Talk:Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria over the naming of the article. This guy apparently dislikes the "conquest" element, coupled with a rather odd interpretation of the events (Bulgaria and Byzantium fought for 40 years that led to the 1018 surrender of what remained of the Bulgarian nobility, but he disconnects the war from the actual act of surrender). He's moved the article to some bizarre names in the past few weeks, without a readily apparent or coherent rationale (or even accuracy), as long as "conquest" as omitted. Relevant literature (I've cited the ODB as the example par excellence) uses the term "conquest" freely, but here I have a textbook case of WP:IDNHT. I lodged a complaint at ANI, but it seems to have vanished without trace. If you would care to weigh in, I'd be grateful. Constantine ✍ 11:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert please

If you have a problem with the discussion between Drmies and DC, initiated by Drmies, you should speak to Drmies about it rather than jumping in with a block. Please restore the block to its prior setting. Nobody Ent 21:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how Drmies has anything to do with it. DC's decision to flout the ban was not triggered or provoked by what Drmies said. It's DC's responsibility to stick to the ban, nobody else's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is a discussion of Natural Breast Enhancement and a reply to something Drmies said. Which is a decision to flout the ban? Nobody Ent 22:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a hostile comment about Prioryman (not in any way provoked by anything Drmies said) in DC's second comment in that thread [34], and another in this one [35], coupled with an admission that he broke the ban deliberately ("It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given"), giving the lie to his earlier protestations of innocence [36]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So it's a punishment thing? There's a pretty strong tradition of allowing a little venting on the talk page. Nobody Ent 22:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Venting, yes. Continuing the exact same offense they were blocked for in the first place, no. He will continue to get blocks and block lengthenings for as long as he decides to break his ban; that's how these things work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You wanna ask for AN or ANI block review, or shall I? (Any preference of venue?) Nobody Ent 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see this action as an absolutely straightforward, no-brainer kind of enforcement of the ban and cannot see any possible basis on which any reasonable administrator would want to overturn it, but if you can't be stopped, do what you think you have to do. I'll be off to bed soonish, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_extension_review Nobody Ent 22:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Fut. Perf.! I disagree with you completely, of course, but I'm not about to let that stand in the way of a good working relationship, and the prodding by others (and Ent, I'm not even talking about you, haha) will not change that. Anyway, I left notes here and there, at AN and on DC's talk page, and I'm sure you'll see, after your beauty rest, how you are completely wrong and I'm perfectly right. Also, I mentioned that I won't overturn your boneheaded abuse of authority (oh, that sounds nice--one of those cats will borrow that phrase) since I, well, am old-fashioned and I see where you're coming from. Doesn't change the fact that your desysop is in the mail, of course (and that my block for baiting is imminent). Natti natti, Drmies (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Fish and Chips for the both of you? FPAS ... I wanted to let you know that I did reduce the block length to the original - please see the AN discussion for my detailed close. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)