User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 20

Macedonian genocide

No comment really.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Table Greekletters

Please see the recent editing history @ Template:Table Greekletters and the brief discussion at User talk:Scientizzle#Name. Since you protected the page and seem to know more about what's going on with these topics in general, maybe you can clear up what's going on? The edits of 204.152.215.115 (talk · contribs) alse seem to have a fixation on you... — Scientizzle 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Another open proxy used by Wikinger (talk · contribs). Please block, revert, ignore. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotchya. I also blocked 96.44.132.12 (talk · contribs) w/ the same justification. Cheers, — Scientizzle 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI post regarding Conservapedia

I've posted to ANI regarding your BLP-based reversions at Conservapedia to get more admin eyeballs on the issue. In no way was it intended to be an accusation or an attack on you, though it would have been better for you to bring in an uninvolved admin. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Conservapedia

Could you unprotect Conservapedia please? -- Nx / talk 09:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there, as you have previously wondered about the reasons behind the ban of Offliner, I think you may be interested in this request for clarification. Colchicum (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed to you a copy of Offliner's appeal to BASC, in which he refutes accusations of certain members of the committee. This has been done with Offliner's permission. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To FPaS, not me, if someone is concerned. Well, given his record I wouldn't take Offliner's words at face value, but whatever. The issue absolutely has to be clarified. Colchicum (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrupted article on Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

The page on "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" and other pages on Ancient Macedonia are probably corrupted. Therefore the editors of the page are warned to be aware of potential sockpuppeters (a report of the recent sockpuppetry investigation is displayed). Please do not repeatedly erase that report, or you risk to be blocked.Draganparis (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you even aware you're on an administrator talk page? FYI, FPAS is an english wikipedia administrator. (hope you dont mind this, Future) Outback the koala (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Dragan isn't aware of much at all ;p He just likes to throw empty threats at everyone... Simanos (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was on vacation. Yes I did not know that you are administrator. I do not know how one can know this. Thanks for the information. My "warning" that you removed is essential for future edits of the Macedonian articles. My objection goes now to the administrator: excuse me, but I think that you should not have removed it. But: The person who has put his comment in between above!? (What is really going on there?) left this on my talk page: "I guess you're mixing up your lies". That person has been insulting me and other people in various ways for long time. The administrators know this, there is not doubt. Is THIS "Wikipedia" style?Draganparis (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I never insulted anyone. I just call a spade a spade. All my arguments are well supported. If the truth hurts some people so be it. BTW I do want to warn the editors of that page that there are sock-puppets around too. Your sock-puppets Dragan. You are the only one PROVEN to use sock-puppets by checkuser stuff. I and the other people you accused were cleared by checkuser. So please go away troll. Simanos (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Istanbul

I think that a collage image would be the best thing for the Istanbul article, no matter what the collage is, as it is Wikipedia custom to give large and especially historic cities such collages. Personally, I would not mind if the other collage, not just the one I personally prefer, would be inserted. What say you?--RM (Be my friend) 04:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm strongly against either, for the reasons I outlined on the article talk. What is or isn't "Wikipedia custom" is quite irrelevant here. Wikipedia "customs" can indeed be pretty senseless fashions, as in this case. I also remain opposed to the image you inserted the last time, which I find bland, uncharacteristic and uninformative. In general, I would recommend simply not bothering about changing stuff here. Shuffling images around in city articles is one of the least productive ways of spending one's time on Wikipedia, because it never leads to a stable state that is agreeable to all tastes. Just leave it be. (Needless to say, this is just my personal advice as an editor; I'm not speaking as an admin here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Galatasaray Lisesi copyvios

On March 29, 2007, you deleted a number of files of images occurring in our article Galatasaray Lisesi, stating as the reason: (copyvio, banned user) (User:Shuppiluliuma?). These included the following:

• File:Logo1k.jpg
• File:Gate of Galatasaray Lisesi from above.jpg
• File:Galatasaray Lisesi in Istanbul.jpg
• File:Garden of Galatasaray.jpg
• File:Galatasaray Gate.jpg
• File:Gate of Galatasaray.jpg
• File:Galatasaray Square.jpg

Two days later, a new single-purpose account uploaded eight files to the Wikimedia Commons, including seven with the above names, claiming {{PD-self}}.

I can't check if these are the same images as the files you deleted, but I bet they are. I also don't know how you determined copyvio, but I bet the eighth one (commons:File:Logo2b.jpg) is also a copyvio. If they are indeed copyvios, they should be deleted at the Commons, but I don't have the evidence available. Is it convenient for you to take care of this?  --Lambiam 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most of them are the same images. Shuppie was wildly socking back in the days. It then turned out that for most of his images, he very likely had informal consent from the original photographers, who were his friends – he kept creating sock accounts under the real-life names of those friends to upload the images for them. In the end I decided I no longer wanted to bother deleting them. – I'm not sure what to do about File:Logo1k.jpg though. The original en-wiki upload was a much smaller version of the same calligraphic sign, but without the construction lines around it. If the logo is what it claims it is, an historical logo used by the school in the beginning, it would very likely be PD-old, but what are those construction lines supposed to be: were they part of the actual logo, or somebody's later addition? (In which case they would be copyrighted.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I guess I'll leave it alone then too. The construction lines may well be those of the original designer; in any case they appear (to me) to be strictly utilitarian and not by themselves an artistic expression.  --Lambiam 16:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alefbe

hello. I have some problems with this user in Kermanshah page. he deleted my reliable refrences about this article many times without any explanation.(see here and here)and just accusing me of being sockpuppet of a user that called Persia2099. as I saw this user's talk page the reason that we was blocked was making multiple image upload with false copyright declarations. but I myself never uploaded any images in wikipedia so I don't have anything to do with him. after all you should do something about this user he is going to waste my time for reverting this page again and again. thank you--Bahramm 2 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just an example of reasons that show User:Bahramm 2 and User:Persia2099 are the same. Alefbe (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I had mentioned this before [1]. Alefbe (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian/Romanian 3RR case

Hello FP. If this is not your thing, you are welcome to send away this question with no further comment. I saw your name in the history of WP:DIGWUREN as someone who aded sanctions there lately. I was looking around for an admin familiar with Eastern Europe that could review some ideas I have for closing a 3RR case.

See WP:AN3#User:Squash Racket reported by User:Umumu(Result: ). This is a case of Hungarian vs Romanian nationalist controversy, on historical topics. There have been disputes for a long time at John Hunyadi, and the article Magyarization probably can go without comment so far as the opportunity for arousing passions. The 3RR case is open, and could provide a chance for using discretionary sanctions under WP:DIGWUREN, if it's a good solution. The person who brought the complaint has broken 3RR, in my opinion, and may be a sock of User:Iaaasi, though I would not attempt to resolve that matter now. Instead of a 3RR block a 1RR restriction on the complaining editor seems justifiable, under discretionary sanctions. If another admin makes this moot by closing the 3RR sooner, I would consider taking the action myself and then offering it for review on a noticeboard.

If I first offer this issue for comment at ANI as a 'what to do' question, there will be 50 yards of comment from involved editors in no time. My interest would be in taking an admin action that has a chance of quieting down the Hungarian-Romanian front in our articles, in the longer term. A nice summary of the long-term problem is given at User_talk:Excirial#Low_intensity_edit_war_:.29.

Instead of a personal 1RR restriction, a milder action could be to impose an *article* 1RR on both John Hunyadi and Magyarization. This probably needs WP:AN to ratify, but it shouldn't be difficult. Any feedback as to what is best solution would be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm repeating my comment on EdJohnston's talk page:

I don't think that when a banned editor returns without permission to provoke an editor it's fair to impose sanctions on the other party. They added a lot of false warnings, reported me with no real reason (like yesterday, in fact he broke 3RR and twice, not me).

You should realize that he had nothing to lose all along and was here to disrupt. I didn't even comment on the misleading way he presented the content dispute. It would send a very wrong message especially in the Eastern European area, if a banned editor could return to provoke, then report others, make serious changes in the most controversial articles without serious discussion etc. He's already banned, he "risked" a fake account only. Squash Racket (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Umumu is now blocked as a sock of Bonaparte. What a surprise! EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hellenic languages

I like the way you've redone the article on Hellenic languages. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

Heh, thanks :-) It seems we had our big debate over there exactly one year ago, but then got distracted by something else... You see, the perpetrator is always drawn back to the scene of the crime after a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Cheers :) (Taivo (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

South Ossetia War title discussion

While I rarely like it when anyone declares from on high that free discussion should not be allowed, I could at least get over that if your decision wasn't so absurd.

Any new proposal at renaming can be brought forward later only if it comes with fresh, new ideas, and if it is proposed by somebody other than those who have been squabbling over it for months.

The rules on discussing something which has already been discussed are new evidence not new ideas. There will probably not be any "fresh, new ideas" because the question of changing the title is about common names and descriptiveness with the proposed titles all basically set in stone. Also, it seems you are saying even if I were to somehow come up with a fresh, new idea I would not be able to present it simply because I have debated this before. You are clearly violating Wikipedia policy in making this decision.

As for a rename not being required:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best.

There it is rather clear that if it is a common name there should not be any question as to what title should be used with consensus only necessary if there is not a common name. The only policy that could prevent it would be on neutrality which was already tossed out by a past admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories

You are invited to join the discussion here. Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Tadija^speaks 17:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned

Kushtrim123 mentioned you [2]. Could you please verify/explain what Kushtrim123 claims to be your comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalistic user box

Hello Future. I have seen this user page and I was shocked. How is he allowed to put such user box about the Macedonian language on Wikipedia? Can you delete that user box from Wikipedia and from his user page as well? I think you are allowed to delete it since you were deleting user boxes from my page, too. I hope that this user box would be eliminated from this Wikipedia. (The box says: this users speaks on the Bulgarian dfialect of FYROM). Thanks in advance --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained & offending comment

Since I feel offended by this comment [[3]] you recently posted, can you please explain me how, Vikos-Aoos National Park (1 of my 2 GAs) or the majority of the articles I've created so far are consider anti-Albanian and I personally hardly ever in all my career on Wikipedia made a single edit to any article that was not directly motivated by a single POV agenda (namely, making Albanians look bad and Greeks look good in the struggle over Epirus). Several other examples are Zakynthos Marine Park, Pindus National Park, Panagiotis Soutsos, Ioannis Giagkos, Battle of Elaia-Kalamas, Pavlos Vrellis Greek History Museum, Belthandros and Chrysantza Song of Armouris (all of them Dyk's) and several other [[4]].

Actually the vast majority of my contribution is irrelevant with Albania. I kindly ask you to give an explanation on this or rephrase this comment because it is virtually wrong. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Illyrians

[5] I agree with this(in fact it was my first proposed version) but since it was endlessly reverted by some users I decided to compromise.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Return to editing

Just a heads up I have returned after a break to the London Victory Parade of 1946 and have made a few edits, including additions and removals of material. I would appreciate your observation of the page, and guidance. There is also some discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to your feedback at London Victory Parade of 1946, I am now holding back from my round of editing there over the last circa 24 hours, as another editor restarted work there. I am suspending my involvement for the time being in order to refrain from battleground editing. I have just added an entry at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, which was my last resort after an extremely troubling diff, which I have referenced there. As you have made objective comments on this in the past, please take a look. I have notified the editor in question. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly suspend my editing there too. BTW you can find my thoughts as to how we solve the problem of content regarding Poles and the London Victory parade here [6]. Varsovian (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trabzon

Hi! Could you look at this article? Something should be done to facilitate discussion. Alæxis_¿question? 21:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I blocked both of the two main revert-warriors. They didn't seem like people it would be worth discussing with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

A while ago I started a discussion here, but no neutral/uninvolved editor replied and I was wondering if you could take a look.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Buoyancy

I'm guessing that Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) tagged the article for WP:GREECE because of the historical connection with Archimedes (much of that narrative was removed recently – a genuine case of throwing out the bath-water!) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ETST

I am wondering if you find anything unusual with this user's activities. After being uninvolved in South Ossetia War article rename discussions he has suddenly become heavily involved. He may just be trying to take up the slack or something of the sort, but it just seems unusual to me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much I can do about that. I see no indication that ETST is a sock of anyone. As long as you keep coming back (obsessively, if you forgive my frankness) to this issue, you can hardly complain of other editors responding with similar determination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not mistake my intent. It is just given the actions you assign to Historic Warrior I figured it was a potential concern. Though, when you say you see no indication does that include no indication that he is acting as a proxy? I was actually more concerned about that than him being a sock.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's probably why you've been arguing with me for 10 days, but started wondering, whether I'm a sock only 3 hours after I have hinted on mediation. And in what way me editing through a proxy or not can be more worrisome, than me being a sock of HistoricWarrior or not? Sorry, but you're out of luck here, I'm not HistoricWarrior and that much can hopefully be proven. You could have asked me that directly or went to any other admin with CheckUser privilege, not to the one and only admin that monitors the article. ETST (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm sorry that I have to abuse your talkpage for all this bickering. ETST (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How very nice. I have just hinted at a probable necessity of requesting a mediation, and Devil's Advocate already spreads around doubts in me and my activities. "Always strike first (repeatedly)" - it must be a good motto, no, Devil's Advocate? Looks like I will have to act accordingly.

Future Perfect at Sunrise, since you're an administrator, who already has some experience with contentious atmosphere in 2008 South Ossetia war article, may I request your attention to a new rename discussion, spawned by Devil's Advocate immediately after you have closed the previous one [7]? Although I get an impression, that you are already well aware of it, I'm still interested in hearing your opinion on how much this new discussion is different from previous ones, considering that Devil's Advocate has already used several of his old arguments, including his usual Ad Hominems, and still haven't presented a single new one. Moreover, he have started inviting other users for comments on his new proposal, which is not a criminal thing in itself, but from the two users, who have responded, one have declared himself disinterested in the discussion (because he sees no difference from previous ones, and expects no result from it [8]), and another have already started using the same old proposals and arguments (against Devil's Advocate, I might add [9]). I'm afraid it all is just a spark for igniting a yet another fully blown rename discussion with no new arguments whatsoever.

To summarize, current Devil's Advocate proposal basically concerns a required ratio between descriptiveness and commonness of the title - a question, which is not regulated by current Wikipedia rules, and therefore the answer is bound to be sought in the area of each one's personal subjective opinion. I think, and I hope you'll agree with me, that it's hard to expect that editors of this polarized article will come to a single opinion, and therefore it all indeed will be just yet another waste of time. If a stop can be put to these endless rename discussions, at least until new facts concerning the article arise, I think it's time to do that now. ETST (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: while I was writing the above, a third invited user argued against Devil's Advocate using very old, literally fossilizing (yet correct in my subjective opinion) argument of "Abkhazia was a minor actor" [10]. ETST (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Update #2: Quite predictably, Devil's Advocate responds with a "no, fighting took place outside South Ossetia, too" argument, which have been used by him for the first time a mere 4 days after the start of the war (Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_6#Seriously.2C_this_article_needs_to_be_renamed).

After that, it has surfaced in all discussions with void result (keywords: "fighting", "outside", "scope"):

Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_31,Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_28, Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26, Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_25, Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_23, (and more, but at that point I got tired of searching). ETST (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Another edit-war

At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians&action=history , involving User:Voyevoda . Inflammatory undiscussed WP:SYNTH.-Galassi (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No it is not

Thank you for the warning but unfortunately you're wrong.--Dr.Mamalala 09:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda

This unexplained edit seems to break your editing restriction, especially as I'd reverted his removal of Kosovo last time he'd removed it. His edit summary for the first removal was "→Attending dignitaries: not a state" and mine for the reversion "The status of Kosovo is unclear - saying it is not a state over simplifies things - 66/192 UN states recognise it, importantly this includes Poland - please discuss on talk page before removing again." When he removed it the second time he neither left an edit summary or commented on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Refactored the above - for some reason (probably the similarity in day of month) I'd been misreading the block log as saying April. My bad! Dpmuk (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have some suspicions that Voyevoda's account was shared between at least 2 individuals.-Galassi (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if you want action taken on that, let's hear the evidence. But I must tell you, I'm skeptical about such claims, as a matter of principle. It's something that people often suspect their opponents of, but I've never yet seen a case actually proven. And I've also never understood why anybody would want to try such a thing. There's certainly an incentive for POV-pushers to try and make it appear they are more individuals than they really are (i.e., use socks) – but why would anybody ever want to pretend they are only one individual, when they are more than that? It would be a self-defeatingly stupid thing to do, as it would hinder rather than enhance their flexibility and effectiveness in POV-pushing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharing is often done in the case of insufficient English skills. Occasionally there are fluctuations in quality of the language, but it takes an expert to figure that out. Im not sure I'd really want to pursue this though.-Galassi (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass revert

Your privileges as the administrator does not give you the right to destroy someone else's work[[11]]. Do not do that again, thank you--Dr.Mamalala 17:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Historian N OH

Looks like Wiki Historian N OH is going through and reverting changes made by myself and others. Like readding clearly WP:OR and unsourced information about Walmarts and Lowes. Readding a picture of William Henry Harrison to the page. This guy has a blistering case of WP:OWN and needs to be stopped. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I also had to take the user to 3RR as he has reverting the page 6 times in a 24 hour period in a clear WP:OWN induced edit war. I can't revert again myself, as I am sitting on 3 reverts of my own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite blocked Wiki Historian N OH for 31 hours for breaking 3RR, made it up to 7 reverts in under 2 hours. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Another rename discussion emerges at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war

I'm sorry for bothering you again, but I was wondering, whether you have accidentally missed my previous request. In addition to things already described there, all that has happened was Devil's Advocate again repeating himself word-to-word [12], and yet another user invited by him, completely ignored the topic of discussed proposal and went directly to supporting "Russo-Georgian war" title instead [13]. I want to hear your opinion on that. Anyway, I can understand, if you do not want to involve yourself in this matter anymore, but right now I need a clear answer on whether you're going to watch over this discussion and take necessary actions? If not, I'll probably just have to file an RfC, or find another admin, or whatever. Thanks for your understanding. ETST (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented over on the thread. At the moment, I get the impression the most problematic input to this situation is actually your own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I simply can't understand that. I'm not the one who's ignoring people's arguments, no I'm quoting and answering them line-by-line. I'm not the one, who uses the old arguments, as if they weren't continuously rebuffed. I'm not the one, who's trying to bring up the same questions 27th time in a row (what was it since last time? 4 months?). And I'm clearly not the one, who apparently wants to change article's title just to anything but current one. I have lined up 5 counter-arguments, on which Devil's Advocate fails to comment for the whole discussion, why do you call my input "not constructive" and "problematic"?

One user declared his disinterest in discussion openly, several others voiced their disagreement with proposed title (in a forced matter, like "I was asked to comment here") and disappeared. It's clear that there's not much interest in current proposal and there won't be any kind of consensus again, and I was hoping you'll agree with me on that. I shouldn't have bitten an incoming contributor? Well, originally I didn't even plan to make that comment, but then I started to be afraid, that you weren't coming and other users might just get provoked by that and start copy-pasting their opinion from older discussions too, and that would quickly turn this discussion into another general rename mess, without any hope to recover. I'm sorry, but just in what way I should have reminded him about the scope of our discussion without you considering it "biting"? I thought that I made it politely enough. ETST (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

LINGUIST List

There's an anon IP that is on an anti-Linguist List crusade. He's deleting most of the article on the flimsy excuse that it's not referenced. He preceded this with a series of deletions of links to Linguist List's Multitree from a dozen or so language family articles. He's clearly operating off some sort of agenda. I've reverted his deletions at the main article twice now. (Taivo (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

A couple other admins got involved. Hope life is treating you well :)) (Taivo (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Draganparis case

You may remember I protested (not threatened you, as some claim) for one deletion of my text and I excused me later when you warned me to be an administrator (nothing showed to me before that you were an administrator though). Would you help now solve some defamation problem please? Thank you very much.Draganparis (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

"This is hardly correct"

It is indeed correct that some Greeks palatalize l and n sounds before an "ee" sound and others do not unless there is another vowel following. Kostaki mou (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that needs a better description then (and preferably a citation), because the way it was worded – both before and after your edit – it seemed to imply a contrast between, say, μαλλί /mali/, which might come out as either [maʎ] or something else, and μαλλιά /malia/, which would come out always as [maʎa]. While the second statement would be true, the first evidently isn't: in fact, [ʎ] always occurs before another vowel; there are no instances of it in word-final position. Can you give a more precise description what structures you are thinking of? Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

μαλλί might come out as either /maʎi/ or /mali/. What the previous poster was saying was that a further vowel would be needed to palatalize the previous λ or ν, as in μαλλιά /maʎa/. This is the case with some speakers, but not others. It seems to me that that was clear. Kostaki mou (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

When the "ee" sound (η, ι, υ, ει, οι or υι) is the only vowel following an λ or ν, it is retained (whether or not the speaker palatalizes the λ or ν). It is only lost when there is another vowel following in the same syllable (something the previous poster failed to specify, by the way). Kostaki mou (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the article again, I see what you mean. (The palatalized sound is indeed analysed as a combination of the λ or ν plus the "ee" (or "i") sound. Not so, as I think I have demonstrated.) Kostaki mou (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dardani

Could you please help on this [14] before growing in a hot dispute? The same misused reference, is being replicated in all Illyrian related articles. Moreover look at this Peresadyes nonsense pure WP:SYNTH. Just try to figure out what this (lead of the article) could possibly mean Peresadyes, (Greek: Περεσάδυές[1]) were most likely a Thracian tribe[2] of the Edones or Illyrians[1](?!) that ruled[3] over, or(?!) with the Encheleans, or(?!) the Sesarethi, but only(?!) if the latter were not the Encheleans themselves(?!) and were part of the Taulantii group[4] of tribes.?!?!?!?! Thanks in advance Aigest (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about the relevant literature on these topics, and, frankly, I'm amazed that any Wikipedian, either you or your opponents, could expect to be able to say anything definite about any of these totally marginal groups at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of it, but this case is pure WP:SYNTH, just look at above sentence, does it make sense?! As I said before, this misuse of reference is spreading all over articles. Looks funny but even after me and Alexi resolved the dispute the article is protected now with the reason of an ongoing dispute:) Aigest (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at Fustanella. Seems another picture war is on the way [[15]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied here [16] but let me tell you that I was very surprised by your proposal! (Joking) Is it really you or somebody has stolen your identity ?:) Anyway my idea is that a person should be accountable for its own actions. Aigest (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's still me. I'm in ur Wikipedia, bein an eevyl basterd, as usual. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied there. Please try to understand my point. Aigest (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why did you put my name in tag teaming with other guys, here my last 500 contributions [17]. Where do you see my tag teaming with quick reverts, except well known and now famous Dardani case, which was well explained by you in Kedadi case and where you do agree that I was right?! Aigest (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in the thread the first time it was brought to the WP:ANI. Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion. [18] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an argument you made on the WPANI discussion that I am curious about, but which I hope you don't mind if I ask you about here, rather than there. I think it is tangential to the question of the several thousand valid and useful wikilinks our nominator excised, won't explain, and won't allow to be restored.

You asked why I hadn't used piped links, rather than redirects. In my first 10 or 15 thousand edits I did make a lot of use of piped links. They seemed to make more sense to me then, although I can't remember why. But as I maintained those articles I questioned my early reliance on them.

The key link that I had originally extensively piped was AK-47/Kalashnikov. It turned out that the material I was working on required me to provide wikilinks to one or the other very frequently, probably several hundred instances.

Should I, when I write, need to know where the base article is? Should I have to know whether the base article is at AK-47, Kalashnikov, Kalashnikov rifle, or even AK-74? (AK-74 is not a typographical error. In the mid-1970s the original classic 1947 design was revised. I gather the 1974 design looks practically identical to the 1947 design, to non-gun experts at least, but has significant improvements that don't show. I gather that many rifles that are called AK-47s are actually AK-74s.) In those hundreds of references to the rifle I came across a dozen instances, or a couple of dozen instances, where Kalashnikov had been translitered as Kalisnikov, or Kalashnakov, or other similar variants. I even came across instances with names something like "Krash-nikor", which is what it sounds like when the rifle is referred to in Afghanistan.

After taking a look at all these choices I decided: I am not a gun expert. I decided I would let gun experts decide which alternate name should be the base name for the article. I decided that if the actual gun experts wanted to base their decision on how frequently each alternate name is used, it would be important I made sure I used redirects, rather than piped links, to make sure the name I quoted from the source material points to the right article. If I used redirects what links here would provide an accurate count of how many instance of each variant we had. If I used piped links the count would not be reliable.

Is there a manual of style that recommends using piped links rather than redirection? If so I'd appreciate you drawing it to my attention.

Is there some other reason you think piped links are superior to redirection?

As they say, "inquiring minds would like to know."

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and explain my view. You are of course quite right that, in general, redirects are handy and should be used as often as possible. The problem exists only if a expression is inherently vague or semantically ambiguous, where a redirect "monopolises" the term for a specific target meaning. I don't suppose there is a problem with that in the AK-74 case, but there is one in the "Uyghur house" case. The expression "Uyghur house" isn't a proper name; it is a simple, generic descriptive phrase, meaning not more an not less than "a building associated with Uyghurs". Its use in the Guantanamo contexts you work with is still part of this same, generic meaning (a possibly conventionalised more specific reference in the special context of those reports notwithstanding). Using the term for a redirect to this specific reference implies that this use is the primary meaning of the expression among all its possible uses, which most likely it isn't. This is of course especially problematic if the reference connected with this particular use has negative associations or might be felt to throw a negative light on things in the eyes of some readers. If a reader were to use the search box to look for, say, ethnic domestic architecture traditions of Uyghurs, and is instead led to an article about Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo, this would be a negative surprise for them, which we want to avoid.

I mentioned another issue, which you didn't comment on above: the reason you had the need for so many links appears to have been that you were routinely linking to things from inside literal quotes, often in cases where your link constituted an explanation not of the meaning of a term, but an "easter-egg link" trying to explain what the expression referred to in the specific context. Please check WP:MOSLINK to see why we usually don't do such links. We shouldn't intrude on literal quotes with bluelinks that aren't contained in the original text. If the quote contains an expression whose meaning or reference is truly in need of explanation, it should be done through an explicit explanatory note outside the quote itself ("in the above quote, 'Uyghur house' refers to a supposed Al-Qaeda safe house …", and this of course would need a ref.) I agree with the other editor who apparently removed many of these links, if they did it for this reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know in my talk page.

Thank you

Thank you for letting me know in my talk page that you mentioned me in the AE. Please read my last comment. I actually agree with your proposal of imposing 1RR or 3RR rules to the whole group (last person that breaks it) rather than to the single person and I thank you for coming up with it. I would suggest that we extend that for at least 3 months. To me it makes sense and will give both us and the admins a break and more quietness in our editing and article improving.

I also have to praise user:alexikoua who came up with the idea of having a Greco-Albanian group to deal off articles for Albanian-Greek problematics User_talk:Sulmues#Common_sense. Could you help us with some advise on how we could set that up? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, this rather disingenuous proposal comes on the heels of my discovery that Sulmues was recruiting people on the Albanian wikipedia to join him in his battles here [19] and his ensuing refusal to translate what he wrote [20]. Athenean (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response here. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should build something similar to the Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Arvanites = Albanians

The Albanian ethnicity of the Arvanites is an fundamental fact which must be taken into account no matter how much users with Greek point of views appeal to change real history. --Albanau (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You have pushed this view through repeated hit-and-run reverting attacks for more than four years now, after the orgy of revert-warring you participated in back in July 2005. You were topic-banned for a year for exactly such a hit-and-run attack in 2008. This is blatant tendentious editing; you have evidently learned nothing in all these five years. If you continue I will see to it that you are banned for good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

People actually change so I urge you to present facts on the actual issue and to stop slandering and making threats. --Albanau (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is massive sourcing to support the fact that Arvanites in Greece today do not identify ethnically as Albanians. It's in the article. And you have, of course, never in all these years brought reliable sources to the contrary, so you have no case. Yes, we had massive problems in the past about nationalist edit-warriors from the Greek side, but as far as this claim is concerned, they were absolutely right. Unless you start bringing reliable sources for your claims, I'm not going to waste any more words on debating you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well said, and I apologize cause I actually missed the actual sentence of them having a Greek consciousness now of days, though I wouldn't consider the fact as them being a population of Albanian origin as controversial and this very fundamental fact should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. --Albanau (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Shuppster is back

See the SPI here [21]. Athenean (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn you're fast. I hadn't even finished notifying all the people he had gotten involved with. Athenean (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot this IP as well [22]. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Democracy

Up late tonight, are we? :) Thanks for the help on Democracy, that stuff it really out there. Athenean (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Christovasilis

Thanks for the c-e job. By the way you have been mentioned in talk:Greeks in Albania, seems we have another situation.Alexikoua (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems User Zjarri has got out of control. Disruptive activity in Anastasios Avramidis-Liaktsis, initiating moves without any discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think my changes aren't at all controversial as they are clearly stated on the talkpage. Alexikoua using partisan sources had claimed this person to be Greek while in fact he was Albanian as all non-partisan sources state. Interestingly his most used source is the company of Macedonian studies mostly known for publications trying to prove the "Greekness" of Macedonia. Note that this isn't the first time he's trying deliberately to present people as Greeks. Check Kostandin and Athanas Zografi for more.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, simply put your sources on the table. Alexikoua, I cannot verify your sources say what you claim they say (unlike with Zjarri's sources, of which I can check at least one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore the sources since Zjarri removed them accidentally.Alexikoua (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the sources on the talkpage so could you give a reply there too?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I added more sources and doubled the size of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

Today, I had the chance to read your proposal at AE and I agree with it. The current situation is anything else but productive. For example as soon as Alexikoua reached 3 reverts in Greeks of Albania, Megistias started reverting [23]. He also reverted Aigest [24]. I remember clearly that with your help there was reached a consensus so I can't understand why he would start again reverting.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I had also agreed earlier, but I am adding to your suggestion in Stifle's talk page User_talk:Stifle#Albanian-Greek_collaboration_board another proposal. Could you please see that thread? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert notice

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic wikihounding. Thank you.--See section "Is this acceptable Wikiquette?"Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AE Kedadi

Please note that the final decision has been made on this AE request; it will shortly be closed. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, saw it, thanks for taking care of it. Now we just need someone to also take care of the obvious socks (see current SPI on "Guildenrich" = "Stupidus Maximus"; plus "TinaTrendelina", "ObserverFromAbove", "Kushtrim123"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

FPS, how can you be so sure that these people are "obvious socks"? Stupidus Maximus was already cleared by IP Checkuser, see Wikipedia:SPI#Guildenrich, whereas ObserverFromAbove and Kushtrim123 also were already cleared Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Suspected_sockpuppets. The only one that still has to be reported is User talk:TinaTrendelina. I have been accused several times to be Sarandioti and Guildenrich too, but those were proved false accusations as well. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll post my comments in the article's discussion page the following minutes, as per restriction. Actually the time I saved the new version I saw the note in my talk page.Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered you here --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Kastri

Alexikoua insists that only Muslim Albanians can be called Cham Albanians. I was wondering what do you think about that since it seems that you have enough knowledge on the subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many theories, I choosed the one that is described in the source Zjarri. used (Kretsi), which is definitely one of the most credible sources on the subject.Alexikoua (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUT

Does this outing justify a block? (Taivo (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I requested a checkuser from User:Alison because of the similarity in editing to User:Markiyan, who runs this website and has been banned from Wikipedia for soliciting meat puppets. (Taivo (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

The issue already got handled. Cheers, my friend. (Taivo (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Edit filter 166

Could you take a look at this one please, it seems to be a problematic false positive: [[25]]. Thanks in advance. The user was blocked as they tripped the filter, but from what I can see they were tagging deadlinks, which are infact dead, thus I will unblock them for now. --Taelus (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional discussion here if its of any use to you: User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Edit_Filter. It might provide some context at the very least. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Another nationalist hotspot

Could you please judge the situation, as I'd better avoid interacting with the notorious certified revert-warrior and wikistalker (almost certainly he'll soon appear right here): [26]. The problem ("Georgian" or "Jewish" or anything of this sort instead of "Soviet" when ethnicity hardly matters at all) is all over Wikipedia, though, so I don't know what would be a decent solution in the long run. Colchicum (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Polyphonic singing again

[27], your opinion would be helpful to clarify it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect these pages?

In this article Albanian Resistance of World War II there has been a continuous tendency in vandalism edits by anon IP [28], [29], [30], [31] and the last one [32]. The same thing even more exagerated happens in Albania article just look only the last days [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] and the last one [39]. Could you please semi-protect these pages so we can get rid of this abuse by anon IP, even other edits by IP are of no value, so we will lose nothing on allowing only established users to edit on these pages. Maybe this action can be extended over all Albanian articles which show such tendency. Aigest (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on topic ban please

FPaS, simply wanting some clarification from you if possible please. As you gave this warning, can you please advise if User:Martintg's participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Biophys_has_proxied and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop#Not_a_battleground is in fact in violation of this topic ban? As he is not a named party to the arbitration, and because this Arbitration has to do with EE-editing (yet a-f'ing'gain) from which he is topic banned, simply wanting clarification from you. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would like to make the following points:

1. The ban on interaction with Russavia excludes cases of "dispute resolution" which this would fall under
2. Since these are comments on an Arb Com case page, it is up to the Arbitrators and the Clerks to decide whether or not this violates the ban

Cheers, --Martin (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Future, it isn't the interaction ban that is being raised, but rather the getting involved in issues which directly relate to the area from which a user is topic banned, and that is what the Arbcom centres on. Don't consider this a report, but rather a request for clarification from yourself, as the one who gave Martin that warning, and where you as an admin stand on issues such as this. If action should be taken, then so be it, but first and foremost it is a clarification request. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the ban excludes not just any "dispute resolution". It excludes only "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". In my reading, that basically means resolution of disputes of which you are inherently part - a kind of "mind your own business" clause. (Otherwise you could simply jump into any odd discussion between Russavia and somebody else anywhere and declare it part of dispute resolution; it would essentially render the restriction vacuous.) So, to my mind this does fall under the restriction. It in fact falls under both clauses, the topic ban and the interaction ban at the same time: You are not supposed to comment on conflicts Russavia has with others; and you are not supposed to have conflicts of your own with Russavia, at least not related to any editing Russavia does on Estaern Europe, because you are not supposed to play any role in such editing to begin with. As for clerks, they have no exclusive jurisdiction over those pages; you are under normal restrictions there as everywhere else, which remain enforceable by any admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that it was Russavia who started the interaction: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martintg/Archive#Comments_by_Russavia. Sigh. I warned everybody around long ago that EEML 11A would have to be made reciprocal to make any sense. Colchicum (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but Martin's interventions in the current Arbcom pages don't seem to be dealing with that incident, so they are not part of any concrete dispute resolution attempt of his relating to that issue initiated by Russavia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that my personal information was posted repeatedly on-wiki, including external links to google searches of my personal details, even when requested to stop. I've tried to resolve this privately via email so as not to invoke the Streisand effect, without success. Therefore, unfortuantely, my involvement is now both legitimate and necessary. In any case, the Arbitrators (who are also admins), are in the better position to determine whether my involvement on the ArbCom case page is justified. --Martin (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how these problems have anything to do with you having a need to comment on whether or not Biophys proxied for HanzoHattori? Another question: I can see you were in e-mail contact with clerk Amorymeltzer and he told you something about you being free to post to the case pages. Did he do so knowing you were under these related bans, i.e. was that intended as an explicit dispensation? – I'm going to ask Amory what his views are; until you get an explicit go-ahead again from either him or me or the arbs, I ask you to refrain from further postings to the case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the scope of the case is somewhat broader than that (and deservedly so), but there will be no harm if Martintg doesn't participate, because by now I think everything has become obvious enough to the arbs. Martintg, please, this is in your best interests. Colchicum (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't why Fut.Perf has not asked the Committee directly, so I have done so here. --Martin (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti

I have undone your redirect of Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti to Samtskhe-Javakheti. The latter article is on the actual region, whilst the former is an article on a large (and notable) diaspora which lives in that region. There is too much information in the former article which would be lost through the simple redirect. That the article may seem to be POV, is an issue of editing, and mainly of cleanup and better referencing. But it is a notable subject, and shouldn't be deleted by redirecting without attempting to salvage any content at all from it. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it doesn't appear to be a POVFORK of the region article, but somewhat of a split of Armenians in Georgia, and that could very well be legitimate. Don't you agree? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, whatever. I don't intend to get involved much with that article. If you want it retained, are you going to clean it up? I personally see little of value in it – the faults, both in language and in POV content, are so grave it would take no less work to just bring it to acceptable quality level, than to rewrite it from scratch, or merge it into the main article on the region, and until either of these are done, the quality is soo poor it's better to have nothing for the time being than to have this. I am also not convinced it needs to be a separate topic. What's the advantage in having separate articles for a region and for its (majority) population? The history and policits of the region are the history and politics of the people in it. I find it hard to think of any legitimate content in the population article that wouldn't also, automatically, be appropriate content for the region article. And in fact, the page as it stands is already going beyond its stated scope, because it is in fact dealing not just with the Armenians but with the other groups too (Meshketian Turks etc.) That does make it a POV fork, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey FPaS, yes there are some problems with the article, such as some of the language (which I think is a matter for copyediting - I've seen worse actually) - I will suggest a merge of the article to that of the province, and will place a notice on the Armenian and Georgian projects for their input, so instead of forgetting about it completely, it might be useful to provide your input on the merge discussion which I will start, and will post a link here for you. Does that work for you? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposed at Talk:Samtskhe-Javakheti#Merge_discussion and the two wikiprojects notified. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AN

[40] your opinion would be helpful because I've been waiting for about a month and no one has replied.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi Future, for your information Historian19 is back [41], usual predictable behaviour, if you are interested in sorting him out again :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hat links

Hat links are not needed at pages such as Macedonia (Greece) or Macedonia (food). The reader is already at the desired page.  Andreas  ^(T) 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that's the standard rule. In the Mac. cases, there seemed to be a kind of consensus at some point that we should have some nevertheless. I have no strong opinion on it, personally. The other guy appears to be right that if we have a hat link, it may be preferable to direct it through the "...(disambiguation)" form (even if that is itself a redirect). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

71.172.192.37

As he does seem determined, I'd appreciate some evidence that he's Deucalionite. I don't need a lot of diffs, just something that makes clear there's a connection. Also, just to clarify, is there anything wrong with this edit or the sourcing, or are you objecting only because he's banned? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Advice

Hello Future! I would like some advice regarding Pumpie (talk · contribs). On the one hand he is the only one who bothers creating articles on some rather obscure Greek people and villages, on the other his contributions consist of nothing but horrible machine-translations and a huge number of often ridiculously implausible redirects. He really doesn't seem to understand Greek, or be very good at English. He's been repeatedly admonished about the machine translations both by me and many other users to no avail, and has been banned in the German Wiki. As I patrol new pages under WPGR scope, I come often across his articles, and am growing exasperated. My question is, is there a way to make him either give more attention to his edits (at least to smooth out the mangled English) or, failing that, make him stay off? Constantine ✍ 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About "exist but are incorrect"

Hi! I have transposed your question to the discussion of the article and answered there. FlavianusEP (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Voyevoda

It seems he has a new sock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kievlyanin . A lot of his items correspond to V's edits on ruwiki.--Galassi (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Gjerasim Biriazi.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you please take a look here Talk:Evllogji Kurilla. A recent move was performed without any discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Souliotes

Don't know if you keep that article watchlisted, but if you don't, I suggest you start doing so. Balkanian's word has recently gone on one of his nationalist editing sprees, ramming through a highly POV-ish "Ethnicity" section together with his trademark 15 references [42]. This, without any prior discussion and clearly against the painstakingly agreed-upon previous consensus hammered out by Moreschi [43] to NOT include an "ethnicity" section (though that time he was addressing himself to Factuarius). Cheers, Athenean (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I read Moreschi's thoughts. At that time (28-29 october 2009) the prevalent thought was "their ethnicity was disputed". Today Balkanian's word brought very good references to prove that Souliotes ethnicity was Albanian. If the ethnicity is disputed, then bring references to dispute that. I still have to see one single reference to show that they were Greek by ethnicity. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't "very good" at all, they are the same old crap that was removed in the first place. He essentially just reverted to his old, pre-consensus version. The guy suffers from a serious case of WP:OWN on all articles touching on the Cham Albanians. Athenean (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus changes(like wikipedia) and his sources seem to pass WP:RS so I wouldn't use your terminology Athenean.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but only when a meaningful number of users, many of them neutral, reaches a new consensus after discussion on the talkpage. Balkanian's sources were removed by consensus. They were aggressively re-inserted without any discussion and with revert-warring on your part. 3 albanian nationalists (You, him, and Sulmues) are not "consensus can change". Got it? Athenean (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, why don't you bring this discussion in the Albanian-Greek talk page rather than in FPaS's talkpage? You seem quite excitable and throwing too many accusations. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing against Moreschi, the first sentence goes "The national identity of Souliotes is hard to be provided, in a period where the national consciousness was not eminent in the region where they lived.", i.e disputed. The second one "As sources claim, Souliotes had a rather strong local identity." in which we all have agreed. The third one is about their ethnicity, not nationality, either identity, and finally that they were Hellenized and became part of the Greek nation. 2. It is not in the lead, which was actually the problem when Moreschi got in the debate. Feel free to express your views, in Talk:Souliotes.Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arvanites

It seems the banned user returned to Arvanites with a new IP, so I've semi-protected it indefinitely, and blocked him again. I'll leave you to decide whether the edit needs to be reverted too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your watchfulness. It seems to be the same edit he tried to push through earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What shou;d i do? Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Your warning

Can you tell me why you left a warning on only my page when there's another party[44] to the reverting? If you look at the edit history you'll see that the guy has blanked referenced text and has been shadowing my edits and reverting blanking out text and references.[45]. Reverting and blanking out text is basically all that this guy goes on wiki[46] I have no problems respecting revert policies but not when it's applied and warning given out selectively. Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never been threatened by an admin like that before. Are you sure you're an admin??? It's one thing to call me out on the reverts but to take a POV position and threaten blocks is pretty out there.

Atrocious?? You're kidding right? The text was REFERENCED[47]. Even if there is text that an editor may feel need verification BLANKING isn't justified. Please remember that editors are asked to assume good faith and there are fact tags and talk pages to discuss issues of verifiability without just reverting text and citations. Again I can admit to playing my part in the reverting but to your claim that my reverts were more atrocious is simply ridiculous.

Also my reference in the Miura Goro article is the only inline citation in the entire article. I also don't have copy of that book anymore. I'll be glad to include the page number when I get my hands on the book again but deleting text and references for lack of citation is nonsensical. If lack of page number is enough to blank the citation and text then entire article should be blanked. If you check the text and citations of that article you'll see that my citation is the most accurate citation in that article.[48]

Again I have no problems following policies and rules but you're applying them selectively and it's your bias undermines your credibility.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

About the "Korea under Japanese rule" article: no, the text was not referenced. It was first added completely unsourced, and then somebody added a link to it, which, however, turned out to not support the claim that was being made. Phoenix7777 quite clearly stated what the problem was, and I can see no effort on your part to respond to this constructively [49]. As for the Miura Goro article, if you read the book, added the content for the first time on 30 April, but then on 1 May, when the citation was challenged, no longer had access to it to check the page number, you could just have said so. I cannot see that you ever did this very simple thing: to say, "sorry, I forgot to note down the page number when I read the book. Please take my word for it for the time being; I'll check next time I can access the book." Instead of this very simple gesture of understanding, you launched into that whole barrage of lawyering and edit-warring. The problem I see with your editing is an overall combative, aggressive attitude, and your reaction to my warning just goes to confirm that same impression. – BTW, it is also very poor style to delete my messages from your page while at the same time continuing to post here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought deleting comments from one's own talk page is notice of comment having been read. There's no need to be testy about it. You're welcome to move our discussion to my talk page if you want. That's fine with me.

And I do find your arguments to be frankly ridiculous. Either you're arguing POV bias or I'm mistaken about wiki rules and policies. Please let me know if that's the case and I'm wrong on my understanding of wiki policy on blanking text and citations that lack page numbers.

As for the Korea under Japanese rule article, the reverting was initiated by Phoenix. If editors go around blanking text that needs further citation and references lacking page numbers wikipedia would be easily halved. We can have an honest disagreement about accuracy of the citation but that should be discussed in the talk page not initiated with a revert. Please don't misunderstanding me. I'm not denying having played my part in the reverting. I am refuting your claim that my reverts were atrocious while the reverts of the other editor was less egregious. The problem is that you're an admin advocating POV and applying the warning inconsistently and selectively based on your POV.

As for the Goro article, there are ways of asking for page number, which isn't even appropriate for all offline citations, such as using inline tags or asking for it in the talk page.

Again, let me know if I'm misunderstanding wiki policy here and we're allowed to just blank text and references without attempting to ask for info in talk page or use inline fact tags and such. There are dozens of articles that come to my mind that are rife with uncited text and citations that don't include page numbers. I've been adding fact tags and banners and asking for information in talk page to repair references and text but my task would be much simpler if I'm allowed to just go through the articles and start blanking paragraphs and incomplete citations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Taekwondo, where he has a long history of this sort of behavior (also under User:Melonbarmonster). JJL (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Karate#Phoenix7777. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 resumed outrageous edits at Miura Gorō[50], Japanese Sea Lion[51] and false accusation. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Phoenix7777 reported by User:Melonbarmonster2 (Result: ) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

del request

Hi. Could you delete User:Jack Merridew (doppelganger) and back Jeff G off? This is not a 'sock' account. Thanks. Jack Merridew 00:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 22:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

malarz pl BOT

It wasn't my bot. I sometimes use MalarzBOT (talk · contribs). Malarz pl (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your contributions and for having taught me more than a couple of things in how to be precise and how to properly reference. Thank you for being around. Danke schoen! Sulmues Let's talk 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

K(o)urilas

Although, I do not agree with the -s in the end, neither in the name, nor in the surname (as it was not the case...), there is a bit too Greek for Kurila the whole thing :P. I have never seen something written about him refering to Kourilas, except of Greek authors. In every English, German, etc. books he is refered as Eulogios Kurila, Eulogios Kurilas, Eulogio Kurila, Eulogio Kurilas, etc. etc., nowhere the Greek ou is in his name for the latin u... Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking based on logic (which I know that is not common in Wiki), Korytsa cannot be an "official" name of the bishopric in a Church where the only official language is Albanian. As you can see here it is Korca. The problem of being Korytsa (as well as being Eulogios) is that, the history article on that site, is a copy of a book, written by a Greek teologician (George A. Christopoulos). But, who cares about logic...Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am waiting about Kourila vs Kurila question. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually like debating the use or non-use of geographical synonyms with people whose single-purpose presence in this project is obsessively fixated on maximising one side of an ethnic issue and minimizing the other. As for "u" vs. "ou", "ou" is prescribed by ISO 843, which is the basis of our Wikipedian naming conventions. "ou" is also found in all bibliographic catalogues where his works as a book author are listed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was exactely my question: In which English catalogoue? In this one? Where? As for the ISO 843, this is not about the Greek or the Albanian name, it is about the name that he is known in English (Orthodox Albanian clergy have different ISO :P).

You may call me a single purpuse editor, but I have made some contribution on this project, and that is, not only in a certain direction. My objection on Korytsa for sure is an "obsessively fixated on maximising" one, but that is because, there are too many double standards and most of all that your argument is not valid: Korca is the name of the bishopric, as you can see throughout orthodoxalbania.org, except that single part, which is written by a Greek (well-respected) theologician. By the way he also says the Archibishop of Tirana Dyrrachion and all Albania, is this the same argument for Durres Archibishopric? Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you admit being obsessively fixated on stuff, here's a piece of advice: stop being obsessively fixated on stuff. It's not good, and doesn't make you more convincing. When you have stopped, we can talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No word for my argument? Only about my honesty? (I feel honoured, but not too much).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Theodoros Kolokotronis

A while back, I made some cpedits to the not-so-great prose of that article [52]. Today, Stupidus Maximus, evidently from watching all my contribs with a microscope, blanket reverted me [53] without any explanation, apparently just for sheer spite. What is to be done with this fellow? He is starting to become REAL disruptive. Time for AE? Athenean (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing from military person to Military Person doesn't really clasify as disruption. You seem to be having a prose dispute so Athenean I think you should discuss with him and not report him constantly.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you mind your own business, that way I won't have to report you for following me around? Athenean (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly has been a nuisance, but in this case he appears to have self-reverted and marked the edit as a "mistake", so let's leave it at that. Zjarri, your constant defending of your fellow sock is becoming tiresome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he did, though only after I repeatedly threatened to go nuclear [54] [55] and after he more or less mocked me to fix it myself [56]. Anyway, case closed, and thanks. Sorry to bother you with this but I guess I just needed to vent somewhere. Athenean (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At least it's over and for the record good faith should be assumed more often. Sorry if I bothered anyone by commenting here but it seemed to me like a minor case that shouldn't become major without a cause.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Greece Spammer

Greetings Future,

Long time; hope everything's ok, the empire and all. Here's what: I tried to do delete an IP's edits in talk:Greece, it was re-added 5 mins later. It appears to be an automated spammer or maybe scammer account targeting articles in the news. After checking the IPs talk page, I saw you're already on top of this ready to bail-out the Greek situation as more than often Germans are these days :) Since you already served a final warning, I think it may be time now to up the ante and block those CDS short-sellers ...eh I mean that IP copy-paster :)

Just curious, any idea what the Hell^EUR666=X he was talking about? Godspeed you! Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that IP is a pest, but because of certain events to which you were not quite a stranger, I am unfortunately not able to do anything about him. Try alerting some other admin? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok will do. Sorry, only because I saw your warning to him, it didn't occur to me. So did you make anything out of what he tried to communicate? Anyway, be well! Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupidus

It seems that something really odd is going on here [[57]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Move

Can you please move back Pandeli Çale to Pandeli Cale. It was a mistake of a fellow editor, which is now explained. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Hi,

I see you gave LAz17 (talk · contribs) a final warning for behaviour problems in December. He's currently at WQA for his behaviour at Talk:Red Star Belgrade: mind having a word before he takes this too far? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See [58]. FkpCascais (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry to bother you with this, but I really need some advice on that issue. I was profoundly offended, I´m being responded with continuos obvious lies, his attitude continues, and I´m thinking in taking this to other level. Can you give me some advice on this? Thanx, and regards, :) FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to tell you, and I´m not sure if you knew, but he is also blocked on Serbian wiki for the exact same reason (saying profanities, and making personal attacks). I have to be honest with you FPS, something strange has been going on. We don´t know very well, but I think that you know that I have been quite an objective, reasonable and "well behaved" wikipedian, that often contributes in a area where some polemical and hot topics are often found (Balkans). The problem is that before getting involved in one article, Draža Mihailović, that I considered to be written in a biased way by one editor that was also breaking the WP:OWN rule, I haven´t had almost any problems. Since then, well, many things changed, but because I got the article to be mediated (much was done to avoid it), I made a group of enemies, and their friends, as supporters against me, in every situation I get involved in. Well, this by itself it is not really a problem when inside reasonsble parametres, that in this case were not allways so reasonable. My major problem is that it looks that now exists some kind of "green light" for users to offend me in the worste possible way. This one, with LAz, has not been the only one, see here some other, [59] that curiously got ME blocked for complaining! Always, afterwords, a series of phalse counter acusations is made, that curiously some, often completely unrelated to that situation, "friends" defend, so an idea of general confusion, and totaly phalse equal response, is showed. Always, when I confront them to show that "equal response" the answer is deverted, or the question is ignored. Even an admin, Beeblebrox, as you see there tryied to level the personal attack with profanities, to my behavior, and when I demanded evidence of it, obviously I was in the begining ignored. I didn´t gave up, and I made a report on that, and you can see the answer that I receved: [60]. All this makes me feel extremely sad and disapointed, not to say, extremely offended. (:() All this things have been said to me, and there was not even an worning given to anyone of them. It is very strange. I have been extremely carefull, because I know that every demonstrated error (breaking any WP rule) would make me be blocked for who knows how long... But sudently users can say to me things that I´m sure that if I told them to someone, I would probably be permanently blocked. How fair?

I´m sorry to say all this things to you, but you are an admin that knows the user I´m complaining now, LAz, and I had allways an excellent impression of you, whenever our ways crossed around here, so I feel that you would be the best person to give me an advice about the situation I am involved in. I apologise once more, and send you the best regards, :) FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Korçë

One of those cases that need another opinion [61].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough is Enough Fut Perf

You are challenging and reverting roughly one in every two edits that I make. When we discuss why and when you lose the discussion you always challenge me with WP:V and WP:NPOV despite my articulate references. You have accused me of racism, plagiarism, dubiousness and have threatened me with blocking (more than once in the case of blocking). You follow me around articles that you have never edited in before and have no knowledge. I'd appreciate it if you were a little more supportive and courteous and less aggressive. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, enough is enough, and I do hope that this will soon end (by you being banned, that is). By the way, are you connected with www.zappas.org, by any chance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me. But there is a lot of useful stuff there and I can't find anything there that I disagree with. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, I've replied on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page to be consistent with 1991–1992 South Ossetia War (capitalized W). If there are objections that are well thought out I would not object to moving back, but we should be consistent between the 1991-1992 and 2008 conflicts. Neutrality^talk 07:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at WP:AN: [62]? Thanks. Grandmaster 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reported for Lack of Good Faith and 3RR

Reported for lack of good faith for your disruptive editing at the usual place. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest from Shuppi

[63]. The guy is relentless. Athenean (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Filed a formal SPI here: [64]. Athenean (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

'Hot' spa summer

I'd recently a conversation with User:Balkanians' Word, after he returned in our community [[65]]. It seems that this spa story is repeating, promising the most possible detailed descriptions of his favourite wiki-topic the Cham issue and especially everything about massacres. I've also noticed that the specific user is obsessed to create wp:battle situations like [[66]] and [[67]]. By the way the specific article is listed for deletion.Alexikoua (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was nothing of battle in my comments. I was asked by the contributor 'whats going on/difficut situations', and I answered to him saying yeah, take a look on those thinks. Nevertheless, I have not created until now any page about massacres (e.g.) except of the Catastrophe of Zalongo which I guess is totally NPOV. Have a nice day, Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Holon

Hey, again, Fut. Perf! I accidentally (and completely) screwed up the article Holon (long story). I was wondering if you could spread the word around and maybe see what you can do to fix it? Thanks!--RM (Be my friend) 05:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupidus

Since you dealt with the situation, there is a (new) case in wp:ani. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_of_banned_user_disrupting_wikipedia_while_record-breaking_SPI_is_still_open.Alexikoua (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some hopes we may yet hear some more from J.delanoy about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the situation in Massacre of Kodra turns very hot, with Zjarri. making partial 'reverts' [[68]] effectively leaving the word 'Albanophil' out, and restoring all this snippet abuse concert, in a last attempt to keep the article, with this obviously wrong exaplanation [[69]]. I believe the article should be full protected.Alexikoua (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing 2k of text without consensus isn't constructive so I reverted him to without reverting Aigest's edit. The use of the word Albanophile is editorializing.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you removed it because you dont like that he is mentioned as pro-Albanian. Same weird situation about this so-called 'official report' [[70]] although you have been told that's nothing like that.Alexikoua (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

My memory is playing tricks on me. I should have acknowledged your quick response to my query right away. I should have acknowledged that you made excellent points -- one that even though I had been working on those articles for over five years, I had not been aware of. I should have thanked you for drawing it to my attention.

Your point about redirecting "Uighur house" was absolutely correct, and very tactfully phrased. Thanks.

But you made another, much more important point "...the reason you had the need for so many links appears to have been that you were routinely linking to things from inside literal quotes, often in cases where your link constituted an explanation not of the meaning of a term, but an "easter-egg link" trying to explain what the expression referred to in the specific context. Please check WP:MOSLINK to see why we usually don't do such links."

I don't remember reviewing WP:MOSLINK before. If I did I overlooked that I was making links that didn't comply with it. And I thank you for drawing it to my attention, and for doing so in a tactful way.

A day or two after your note I returned to the discussion fora, and IIRC, I did acknowledge that you convinced me that my redirection of the general term "Uighur house", and some other similar redirects I had created, were a mistake, and that I should have used piped links. I got a convincing comment via email at around the same time that made the same point.

I'd like to ask for more comments/opinions/assistance.

A year or so ago I started to rewrite the sections of these articles that contained the long quotes. I started to replace them with a briefer summary of what the quoted material had contained, stripping out redundancies, and written for a general audience, not a military reader. I'd generally try to create a document on wikisource, containing the original memo, and put a {{wikisource}} link in that section of the document.

After you drew my attention to the possibility my use of links within quoted material might lapse from WP:MOSLINK I decided that I should up the priority I placed on this particular initiative of mine. If I understood your easter-egg comment, then replacing those quotes with summaries of the allegations, and having the summaries include wikilinks to articles on topics mentioned in the allegations is policy-compliant?

Another contributor has challenged me on replacing the quoted material with summaries, asserting that the quoted documents are somehow "unique", and thus can't be fairly or neutrally summarized.

I am not aware of any wikipolicy which supports the premise that some WP:RS are "unique" in a way that means they can't be summarized. Neutrally written and properly referenced summaries of WP:RS are the kind of contributions we are supposed to offer, I thought. Are you aware of a wikipolicy that supports the premise some WP:RS can't be summarized?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MOSMAC3

I'm going through old proposals. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/MOSMAC3 doesn't seem active; is the plan still to have this as an active proposal or has it been superseded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)? Fences&Windows 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had quite forgotten this was still tagged as "proposed" and all that. It was basically just a working draft and has long been superceded by WP:NCMAC, just as you said. I've blanked it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spi Guild, S.Maxim.

I added one more in this large list. If you remember this article: [[71]] was initially listed for afd, but finally was speedy deleted due to copy-vio. Suppose this is the reason why I can't find the 'afd' discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that with this afd in 'Massacre of Kodra', Stupidus Maximus 'virtually declared' that he is Guildenrich. He even copy-pasted one of his sources from his past userpage in both the article and the afd.Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, it's over at last. Which leaves us with the question: Who is "KengaJone"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if KengaJone messes around too much, will be reported as well. Btw, I still fail to see why Guildenrich=S.M, just because Delanoy saw that they had edited "at one point" from the same Internet Cafe. If I happen to be in that cafe, I know that I too I'm screwed in Wikipedia. WILL NEVER EDIT FROM INTERNET CAFES. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

TPG

Could you please enforce talk page guidelines (not a forum and all that) on Talk:The Soviet Story to avoid unnecessary confrontation? Colchicum (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha

Thanks for removing the enforcer, well, at least you understand my inability to stay away from here. A clear addiction case. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting an article

[72] So far the only advice I managed to get is to rewrite it emphasizing on the falseness of the allegations, but you know how Balkans articles are so I think that without more uninvolved opinions any changes would be reverted by the usual circus.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu

[73] bah Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Or rather Luxo SMITHEGREC, this ip as well [74]. I've requested global lock of the account, but I don't have the time right now to clean up Xwiki - if you or some of your talk page watchers familiar with this would like to do an effort that would be grand. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Looks like someone is accusing you of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Future Perfect at Sunrise. I'm almost certain the filer is a sock though, but I don't have much to work with. Care to comment? Elockid ^(Talk) 21:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to, already CU'd bagged, and tagged the obvious sock that filed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Rlevse. Closing the case. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew by the way it was filed it was a sock. Glad to help here. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, this seems to become a kind of tradition ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The disruptors don't like those of us who make them behave! ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They might not like you, but everyone else does! :D FluffyPug (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kengajon

Since you were interested to check his past, it appears that User:Dan of sq:wiki isn't active some 13 months now [[75]].Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it really couldn't be him anyway, for various reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems you were completely right about him. He uses one of the cheapest arguments [[76]] pretenting that he was sq:Dan (quite weird i. he lost his password, ii. never cared to create a new one in sq:wiki, iii. 13 months passed and no news about him, iv. after more than a year of absence he decided to become an active wp:spa from his first day).

To sum up, trolling comments [[77]] and voting in Albanian related topics [[78]] are the major interests of this latest wp:spa account [[79]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

Just returning after 14 months (long story) I decided to check out some of the articles I used to be active on. So... I noticed that the Republic of Macedonia article has calmed down and stabilised appreciably. Nice job.  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back. Yeah, we had a big bloody arbcom case about it shortly after you left, but then at last managed to get a decision process in place that sorted out the naming conventions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it all worked out, as it was kind of, well, a lot more stressful than it needed to be. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic flag

Hi, I noticed your contribution of today and I have some remarks.

• We both know that the Vergina Sun is the main symbol for the Slavic-Macedonians and, despite the disputes regarding the use of this symbol, I believe it is correct to use it in the article. However, in order not to fuel any edit-wars, I prefer to use the designation "Slavic-Macedonians" instead of simply "Macedonians". Please, can you change it? Moreover, this ethnic group is also present in Pirin Macedonia and in Greek Macedonia: why have you removed these regions from the caption?
• I disagree with the removal of the Pomak tricolor. True, FOTW refers to unorthodox sources, but, in these cases, I think that should prevail common knowledge.

However, in the coming days I plan to do research on the flags with the cn-tag. Therefore, if possible, I will remove the tag by adding a reference, otherwise I will remove the entry. Would you mind help me to check the reliability of sources? Thank you. The White Lion (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. About the Mac. cases: we agree about the flag as such. The name of the group doesn't require disambiguation, in my opinion: within a list of "ethnic groups", "Macedonian" can have only one meaning; tagging it with any additional qualifier would be nothing but a concession to the POV-warriors. On the other hand, their presence in the neighbouring countries is in fact a more legitimately contentious issue. I don't see we need to achieve exhaustiveness with these country lists – there's always additional small numbers of marginal minorities here and there, and whether any self-identifying ethnic Macedonians in GR and/or BG constitute more than a marginal portion of the population is in fact open to debate. So, leaving that out is less of a POV concession than changing the name, in my view. As for the Pomaks, I strongly disagree "common knowledge" is anything we should go by, and indeed, I don't see how it is common knowledge – it was certainly not "commonly known" to me. The FOTW website cites WP among its own sources, so we may have a case of circular referencing supporting a meme that just spreads through the web. But of course, if we can get better sources for it, no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if I find better sources, I will submit them to your attention. Well, about the term Macedonian, I understand that any additional qualifier could serve as a precedent to justify cases like Greek-Macedonian one. But the matter is highly controversial, also judging by the constant rv I can see. I hope we will not be forced to ask for a new semi-protection of the page. TWL (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Help:English to Greek Translation

Hello! I need some help on English to Greek translation. For english words "Bishop of Rome", which words are more suitable "Επίσκοπο της Ρώμης" or "Επίσκοπος Ρώμης". If you think none of these is right, feel free to suggest your own words. Thank you. Amit6 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "επίσκοπος"; the form without final -s is wrong. About the article before Ρώμης, my impression is that the name of the actual title, in official ecclesiastical parlance, would be "Επίσκοπος Ρώμης" [80], but in normal informal text, where you use "bishop" as a generic noun, you would be just as likely to find "ο επίσκοπος της Ρώμης" [81]. But I'm not a native speaker, so take it with a pinch of salt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Amit6 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Kaiserreich

Ja, danke für den Hinweis auf meiner de. Seite. The guy seems to have lots of fun chasing all kinds of wiki-admins around. He is bright, too - managed amazingly to stitch a three-line-Swahili entry together. Since he was kicked out from en and de he seems to look at smaller wikis. Found also a remark from an Irish user on his SMITHECAV alias at gv. Tonite -after I had blocked 3 IP of his- he sent me a link on fr which seem to be his blocked identities over there: fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/SIMTHEGREC. Can we send him back to you at en, please?? (sw:user:kipala) Kipala (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we don't want him back. He has a nasty habit of eating penguins. That's why I am officially afraid of him, as my user page demonstrates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Filter 166

Hi. I'm confused by something I'm seeing at WP:AIV. A bot claims that 87.203.115.3 (talk · contribs) edited 2008 Greek riots at 10:01 EDT this morning [82] but the article doesn't show any edits at that time, nor does the user's contributions show any edits. Does that mean something from the article was oversighted or am I missing something on how to read this? Thanks, --B (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit was correctly disallowed by the filter, that's why it doesn't show up in the history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok ... thanks ... for some reason, I didn't see that it said "disallow". It must be a Monday. ;) --B (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I_Pakapashem: Block evasion

If you still remember him, his block period recently expired and now he is creating a number of problems on Albanian related articles. I've noticed that he evaded his block [[83]] during his 6 months block.Alexikoua (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

71.172.188.168

Who is the banned user?   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Deucalionite (talk · contribs), as so often. Well-known IP range and behavior profile. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked and tagged the IP. I don't know the field well enough to revert his edits safely.  Will Beback  talk  06:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you check this edit filter hit please?

It looks like a false positive to me, but there was a similar case a few months ago where I thought the same thing about the same type of filter and was wrong. Since you know this person better than anyone else and you seem to be active right now, I come to you for clarification. Is this edit legitimate? The false positive report is here. —Soap— 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck article

I notice you have had the article as a protected redirect for two years and wondering if you would consider unprotecting it. I think the subject has clearly established notability given its wide coverage in national media and serving as inspiration for episodes of prominent shows like Law and Order: SVU. Also he had been interviewed by People magazine with regards to the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I can reconstruct, I was only helping to enforce a decision that had been reached at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 28, based on a deletion by User:Newyorkbrad. This was a contentious issue and an important episode in the struggle over how to deal with BLP issues, so I don't feel I should unilaterally overturn the decision reached back then. You'd have to take it up with the admins involved in that DRV, and possible re-run another DRV, but unless you have substantial new evidence of notability factors that weren't known back then, I doubt it will be overturned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Hi. I have recently attempted to start an overhaul of the article Soviet Union. So far there has been some rather heated (and apparently fairly pointless) discussion on its talk page concerning the proposals, and there doesn't seem to be a prospect for coming to terms with some of the folks there. Unfortunately surprisingly few people seem to be interested in the topic, and those who are appear fairly opinionated and determined to defend the motherland no matter what sources say. I'll understand if you don't want to be immersed in this topic area, but unfortunately there is a grave shortage of third-party editors willing to enforce content policies there. You seem to be rather good at it elsewhere, so would you mind to chime in and try to sort it out? Nothing too specific so far, just please keep an eye on this. Colchicum (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

userfy Yakir Forman

Can I ask you to userfy the article Yakir Forman for me. I have some additional material to add and didn't know that the article had been PRODed, Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have done this, if only on formal grounds (as it was only a PROD, not an AFD), but with a bit of a stomachache, because I really really can't see the notability here. A smart young kid who did well in a couple of student contests at school? It would go straight to AfD as soon as you took it back into mainspace. But then, I saw entries in the article history, of an IP that plausibly claimed to be the article subject, asking for its deletion for privacy reasons. That's the clincher for me. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of "opt-out" for marginally notable BLPs, and this article is certainly marginal at best, and concerns a minor. So, sorry, I don't think I want to undelete this – unless you have some very strong new data that speaks to notability of a whole new kind. You may of course request undeletion at DRV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Headline: User:Bandurist gets reviewer status AFTER he's been blocked indefinitely

Can you believe this? --Taivo (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Erseka to be moved.

Hi, FPS, could you please move Erseka to Ersekë? It's the only Albanian city that is incorrectly spelt. See also Talk:Erseka. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you please move this? Both Greeks and Albanians are for the move. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Also can you please take care of this guy Special:Contributions/Scientificcc, I feel like an idiot for helping him incubate Albi Sulo article. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Illyrians

I am curious to find out which would be the perfect state of art explanation since nowadays practically every reference to Albanians says the same thing (some say direct some say generally assumed not only EB but other NPOV and RS sources also look here) and what is the difference between your mixing or references in one and my version here when they are saying the same thing. Aigest (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The state of the art is that we don't know. It is curious how Albanian editors' refusal to comprehend the notion that the huge majority of responsible, specialist literature on the topic is deeply and fundamentally agnostic on the issue matches only the Greek editors' refusal to accept the same state of affairs regarding the "Greekness of the ancient Macedonians". Both groups of editors then resort to helpless, obsessive methods such as those compilations of sources, like the one you link to on the project page. The very fact that it cites Woodard as "favouring" the Albanian story, when he in fact says the dimaetrically opposite, is telling ("Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture"). Now, that indeed is a good summary of the state of the art. And as long as that is the case, we will give this hypothesis and the other competing hypotheses exactly the same kind of coverage. Any wording like the one you used, which gave the Illyrian hypothesis a clear advance over the others, is unacceptable. If you think your version said "the same thing" as mine, you need to learn to read more closely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, could you have a look at the "Genetics" section of Origin of the Albanians? It's one of the worst I've seen, but I don't dare tackle it myself. Athenean (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@Fut. I am curious to find out how did you find out the fact that the huge majority is agnostic. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying when I was referring to the state of art of the issue. When apart those who support Illyrian-Albanian hypothesis there are:

1. Linguists who say (Illyrian-Albanian (sic!)) is a widespread assertion(Fortson 2004),
2. Historians who say "Traditionally scholars have seen the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians" (Fines 1991)
3. Encyclopedias who say "Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian" (Trudgill 2006)

Did it pass into your mind that the majority of the specialists (I don't believe the above mentioned experts were referring to non-specialist) had already expressed an opinion different from yours? Aigest (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Those quotes just demonstrate what I'm saying: "assertion", "traditionally" etc. are polite ways of saying: "there's a lot of people who perpetuate that meme, but nobody actually has any evidence". That's what Fortson, Fines and Trudgill are saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but said that let me remind you that first.. that meme is opinion of specialists (just like the other meme also) and second..they are in majority. You had to deal with it, like it or not Aigest (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RAB Slite

Rederi AB Slite was a Sweden-based company. Therefore, as per Aktiebolag, the company name should be abbreviated with both capital letters as Rederi AB Slite, not as Rederi Ab Slite as you have moved it (as the latter would signify it being based in Finland, which it wasn't). Aplogies if this sounded harsh, it's late and I'm tired. Never the less, unless i'm missing something, you moved the article from the correctly capitalized title to the incorrect one. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I have no opinion on this, obviously. Somebody was trying to make that move from "AB" to "Ab", and they sounded like they knew what they were doing. I merely fixed it by their request, because the move had technically got stuck. Lemme see, I guess I'll just move it back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

note, in case Moreschi is inactive

Usually when I come across User:Jacob_Peters' socks I take'em to Moreschi since he's got a ton of experience in blocking them, but since he's inactive and since you've helped him out with this sort of thing in the past, thought I'd notify you of a message I left at his page: [84]. Double nickels on the dime its JP.radek (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.radek (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the ARBMAC log

Hello, at [85] I suppose you did not mean to add the first paragraph, which looks like it was copied from elsewhere?  Sandstein  23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

I have put this page on pending change protection per request at the pending change queue. However, it seems that this article have a bad history of edit war, and since you know the history of this article better than me, be sure to keep an eye in case if another edit war breaks out, and you are more than welcome to override the PCP by putting it back to semi or full if needed, thanks. 山本一郎 (会話) 06:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A slow edit-war

There is another Russian nationalist edit-warrior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Borealis55). He reappears every few days: removes citations, inserts modifiers to make the citations sound partisan or untrustworthy~. This is way beyond typical content disputes: He engages in absolutely no discussions. -Galassi (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

More of the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Hundred_Years_Together&curid=21254884&action=history . -Galassi (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Once more, no discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Hundred_Years_Together&curid=21254884&diff=370405733&oldid=370152195 . -Galassi (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A new sock/block evader

I am positive that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kievlyanin is a sock for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Voyevoda. -Galassi (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it, but I'm not finding it quite self-obvious enough to block on sight. Could you put together a WP:SPI report with a bit more concrete evidence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

All of his contributions correspond with Voyevoda's edits on ruwiki, in a nut-shell. Tha language pattern too, but that is very hard to put into words.-Galassi (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it now. The ru-wiki correspondences are clear. Thanks for spotting him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

De rien. Would you look at that Borealis fellow as well? He will surelly revert again in a day or 2.-Galassi (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 12:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Nonsense warnings"

Feel free to read WP:NPA at your leisure before you use such language regarding my good faith efforts to help a very nonproductive user. And since the account in question is an SPA that engaged in repeated violations of several policies, including the one against vandalism, you might want to avoid making blatant errors (such as "it isn't vandalism") in the future. Şłџğģő 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling a warning "nonsense" isn't a personal attack. Whatever the merits of Oepps' edits, they were indeed not vandalism, and you should have known it. In fact, I have reasons to believe this was an article subject trying desperately to rid his article of false, unencyclopedic and personally damaging information. Let me make it quite clear that when it comes to protecting BLP interests, I will take the side of the offended article subject. I hope you will not attempt to reinstate that disputed info (which, even if true, would be utterly unencyclopedic) again, because I'd have to block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling a warning "nonsense" isn't a personal attack. Uh, okay. No. I already explained this in plain English, so whatever. If you think that guy is actually Omar Epps, go ahead and indefblock him for violating several policies, including a failure to publicly disclose who he is. (His edit summaries refer to Epps in the third person, which, if he's Epps, is weird.) Şłџğģő 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha Futperf, check out this. Hilarious, eh? Daniel (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Zaid Shakir

I tried to address this issue to NuclearWarfare a while back but I didn't realize he wouldn't be able to look at it. S/he did direct me to you however as a possible arbiter. Here is the issues;

I am not sure what the proper route is to pursue this, but I do not believe that the user Imzaid (also goes by Monteil for some reason) should be editing the page of Zaid Shakir because of overt conflict of interest. "She" writes in this diff [86]: "Second,I am the wife of Zaid Shakir and set-up this page 2yrs.ago"

I honestly wouldn't mind if she continued to edit the page but I continue to run into the same problems over and over again as she either lacks a fundamental understanding of Wikipedia policies or purposely ignores them. A few examples: 1) Inserting commercial links and spam linking:[87] 2) Unexplained deletion of sourced material:[88] Imzaid also never includes an edit summary, making it difficult to know why she made certain changes. I asked the user to make smaller changes one by one, but Imzaid's blanket changes make it difficult to have any sort of reasonable conversation on the merits of those alterations.

Since I first addressed this issue to NuclearWarfare in late May, the same conflict has repeated itself over and over and over again.

Your help is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Question on Conditional Unblock

Am I allowed to comment on the AfD? I will comply with whatever you advise. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And may I edit on the talk page? I am trying to get clarification on the BLP policy. Thank you. Minor4th • talk 22:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Serbian–Albanian conflict

Can you give a look at the article Serbian–Albanian conflict. It is full of WP:OR WP:SYNTH, but what is more important is only an agenda pushing article. Aigest (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Deucalionite

This banned user is back [89] so could you semi-protect the article?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't take action against him myself – you might try some other admin (User:SlimVirgin has been active on the case repeatedly.) However, before we keep fighting over this one, it might be advisable to first fix those sources. I must grant Deuc this point, the sourcing for that point is abominable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think that I can easily fix it when the article gets semi-protected.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the original edit by Guildenrich, who first introduced those sources [90], when they still had actual bibliographic info and links (which are now missing). One source [91] merely says he came from "Arta in Albania" (that's a 19th-century source of course), so nothing about Albanian ethnicity. Another [92] calls him an "Albanian Greek", yet another says [93] he was from an "illustrious Albanian family"; in both these cases it is not clear whether "Albanian" is being used in an ethnic or in a geographical sense – and the latter may well be more likely. All of these sources are quite outdated and hardly reliable. So, ignoring Deuc. for the moment, what do you want to do? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For the moment(ignoring Deuc.) I would remove anything related to his ethnicity(Greek from an Albanian family doesn't make much sense) and afterwards search for reliable sources about it. If I were to use only these sources I would add something close to Greek Orthodox monk of (possibly) Albanian origin, but I believe that I can find more sources so I don't think that we'll have to base our edits just on these references.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Deucalionite is back in Talk:Byllis. Along with other users he is trying to add the WPGR tag.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri's latest accusation about off wiki cooperation with Deucalionite is really weird (in talk:Byllis). By the way this tag game is really childish (personally speaking it's useless too). Since there is an 'ancient Rome & Greece' tag, it's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's childish then why did you insist on the use of WPGR? Btw my comment includes I don't know, unless.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added wpgr before 'ancient Greece & Rome' tag was added (as I've explained above this tag is ok to me). Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Duchamps comb

I added an indef topic ban to the user in addition to your block.[94] It's up to you whether you want to lift the block or not. NW (Talk) 20:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of what the sources say

Could you take a look at this?

Basically, the article includes the statement:

"Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud write that "the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command."" - sourced to "For Your Freedom and Ours: The Kosciuszko Squadron - Forgotten Heroes of World War II" by Lynne Cloud and Stanley Olson. Indeed, it's a direct quote from the source.

Varsovian insists on adding the following statement right after it:

This statement flatly contradicts available historical records,[25] media reports of the time,[23][26] statements from the British government[27][28] and the memoirs of western command Poles,[3] including those who were invited to attend.[29] - note the presence of citations.

The problem is that none of these citations 1) reference Cloud and Olson and, more importantly 2) show that historical records, media reports of the time, statements from the British government or the memoirs of western command Poles (sic) actually contradict Cloud and Olson. In fact, pretty much all the sources given in citations SUPPORT Cloud and Olson. So Varsovian is pretending that the citations say the opposite of what they actually say.

I realize my comments on talk page go into some detail and are a bit long but I wanted to fully examine the citations. Furthermore, while when I was first looking at it I expected this to be just typical OR and stretching of the info present in the sources, by the time I got done looking through the citations it became pretty clear that this was a probably deliberate misrepresentation of the sources. I could buy if it was one or two mistakes, in a case where the matter is ambiguous. But this is 7 (seven) instances of providing sources which say the OPPOSITE of what they are supposed to reference.

While this isn't as blatantly offensive of a misrepresentation as what Bandurist did recently on "Polish Auxiliary Police", it's very much in the same vein - sticking a citation at the end of a highly contentious claim in the hope that no one will check it for verifiability. Also, this kind of problem with Varsovian's editing apparantly keeps coming up again and again; and when he comes under scrutiny he backs off for a few days, then after a short break returns to do OR on this article (and several others) - and this time he totally misrepresented the sources to support it.radek (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a point-by-point reply to Radeksz allegations here showing that the sources are contradicted by Olson & Cloud's claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” because the sources all show that some of such Poles were invited. I have also reported here the fact that Radeksz appears to be proxying when suddenly discussing an article which he has never before edited or discussed. Varsovian (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I mention you here.radek (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I sent almost exact version to Sandstein yesterday for clarification through email if this is valid yesterday-he can confirm this. If he would wrote that this has no merit then I wouldn't have posted. He directed me to post this to AE for clarification. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also correct your statement-Loosmark was never part of EEML discussion group Sorry while Loosmark wasn't part of the discussion group, you didn't claim he was.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no error in my statement regarding this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry misread, already scratched this from AE before doing this here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging with Wikiproject

I am aware of your thoughts on the WP tags in the tag pages. However I would like to remind you that I have been reported to AE by user:Athenean mainly on the accusation that I entered the tag of WPSQ in Molossians, Thesprotians, and Chaonians. According to many Albanian scholars, they were Illyrian tribes, not Greek tribes. Sandstein gave me a warning because he considered such behavior as WP:Battleground mentality. As a result, while you may see meaningless, futile, and stupid, entering and removing WP tags, other admins might not see it that way. I posted in the Greek WP a question Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece#WPSQ_and_WPGR_tags as to what WPGR members think and I would like to know if there is any policy in Wikipedia that clarifies a little better tagging policies. Could you please consider your intervention in that talk page with your thoughts? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 17:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop putting to deletion the Albanian folklore.

What's this spree of nominating to deletion all the Albanian folklore as soon as I wrote the mother article of all of them (Albanian Songs of the Frontier Warriors)? If it's a way to get people to contribute this week on the articles, then it might not work because they're all to see the final of the World Cup.

You may drop a line on the WP Albania. You well know that we are just 2-3 active ones. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kildare Poems

-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the friendly warning. It all got a bit nuts there for a while! I guess interest will drop off like crazy one the World Cup is over. Hope so anyway. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I appreciate it. (And, now that Paul actually helped us win our last match against Uruguay, I'm happy to announce that I will not be having grilled octopus for dinner tomorrow after all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dajudem/Tundrabuggy

When Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) was found to be a sock of Dajudem (talk · contribs) you requested that a CU store the relevant data. Do you know if this was done? I ask because an SPI was opened on another user believed to be a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy. nableezy - 00:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect. Regarding your comment here that CU data may not be available, I have off-Wiki data that suggests that ties Dajudem/Tundrabuggy to Maine and Arizona. Hopefully Stellarkid's IP address can either confirm that they have edited from those areas, or (if not) exonerate them. I had asked Shirik the best way to handle such personal data, and they said I should email it to them, or the CU email list. I'm currently collecting my notes, but I hope to write up that email later today, and could send the info to you as well. Cheers. ← George ^talk 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect, I've found a way to link Stellarkid and Dajudem to Maine and Arizona without revealing any personal data (My understanding is that IP addresses are not considered personal data covered by WP:OUTING). I'll email the other off-Wiki sources (that contain personal data) if I find it necessary, but I don't expect it to be. ← George ^talk 19:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Megistias on WP:AE

Seems that Megistias' case has been archived without any notice. Cheers. — Kedadi 16:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology check, ancient geography etc

Hi! Could you please take a look at the relevant section of the Ural Mountains, User talk:Materialscientist and Riphean Mountains? The claim that Pliny the Elder assigned the Riphaean Mountains to the Ural Mountains seems particularly dubious. Well, to the best of my knowledge he couldn't and didn't, not sure if a passing mention in a 1823 book could beat it. And there are probably other issues. Your suggestions are welcome. Colchicum (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Attila art work

how can i prove that, the art work is under a free licance. this is the original page the author has published the work: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_(hun_uralkod%C3%B3)--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

definitely, he claims he is the same person who upload the art work and he also claims there couldn't be any limitations.--Finn Diesel (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help re: disruptive edits

Duchamps comb has repeatedly removed sourced material from Rand Paul without discussion, and then began disrupting Paul's talk page by introducing misleading quotes. Duchamps posted this on the talk page:

"and its registered team only has one ophthalmologist" --[that entry is wrong because] Paul has had over 200 other Opthamologist re-certified by his NBO. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality, the sentence said:

"its [the NBO's] registered team only has one ophthalmologist, Paul himself, listed in the annual filing submitted to the Kentucky registering agency."

Additionally, the source is a document that Rand Paul penned himself! When asked to cease the removal of sourced information in the article without discussion, Duchamps declined. As you've dealt with Duchamps previously, regarding similar actions, I believe this situation would benefit from your help. The Original Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Attila the Hun photo

Thanks for tagging the Attila photo for deletion from the commons. I expanded on the situation on the Attila the Hun talk page. I deleted the photo from the article, then realized I was putting the cart before the horse, that the Commons deletion should have a chance to be answered. I went back to replace the photo, and discovered a different problem: An anonymous editor making several changes in a few minutes, including to the Attila the Hun article, with the Edit Summary "IN GOD I TRUST - FINN DIESEL" [95]

I'm not sure whether it's more appropriate to move this to an anti-vandalism page, but I assume since you are familiar with the history, there would be less confusion if you continued. I'll mention the reason I got involved at all was noticing what seemed to be a high number of reverts in Finn Diesel without an Edit Summary, and a warning for edit warring his talk page. The copyright violation only seems to be one of the problems, although perhaps the most cut-and-dried. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The IP is probably not the real Finn Diesel block-evading, but unrelated banned sockpuppeter Wikinger (talk · contribs) impersonating him purely for the purpose of spreading confusion. Any IP that turns up editing in a weird manner after this one (including IPs that might start edit-warring against the first) will all be Wikinger socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, having dealt with the sock IPs, the thing about the actual copyright is maybe not quite as open-and-shut. There is some chance that the guy is actually right and those paintings were original works by one hu-wiki contributor. Commons are now waiting for e-mail confirmation to get this clarified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I did think it odd that Finn Diesel would resort to such extreme tactics. His "sins", as it is, seem to be edit warring and unclear Edit Summaries for his motivations. It's nice to have an explanation of the broader situation from the admin perspective. Sometimes one wonders, "What the heck was going on there?"

I formulated the question about photo copyright on the basis of Finn Diesel's conflicting claims that were not related to policy, e.g., that Wikipedia had purchased the photo, implicitly that he owned it, explicitly that someone else owned it, and that "artist's works are free". I steer clear of debate about free use of photos of paintings, but I'm somewhat ambivalent after a long and polite letter from a national museum explaining that they were enraged Wikipedia was making free use of images of dozens of their paintings which are their property. They regard Wiki's usage as theft. Even apprehending various opposing legal positions, I have a personal experience that disposes me toward free use: The professor in a Chinese landscape painting class told us that the public really doesn't know what the greatest works are, because most are in China, many behind private doors, and have not otherwise been seen. Is is proper to hide human cultural heritage in this fashion? As much as I respect personal property ownership, I would have to say it is not. But these are other problems, for other people. It would be nice to reign in Finn Diesel to the point where he was a little less nationalistic, and a little more aware of English Wikipedia policy. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens

Please take care of this nightmare: [96]. Colchicum (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Serafin sockpuppet?

You blocked User:Showasw the other day as a sockpuppet of banned User:Serafin. Is User:MyMoloboaccount another sockpuppet?--Srleffler (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Serafin for certain. My speciality are German war crimes in WW2 and Polish presence in German states.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"MyMoloboaccount" is a new account of long-established user Molobo (talk · contribs). He has some history of prior blocks and bans, IIRC, but is not a sockpuppet, certainly not of Serafin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate screenshot

The article only states "(dubbed "Climategate" in the media)". Their is not a section as to the Etymology, yet there is over 2 million hits on Google. NFCC #1&8 states, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The screenshot clearly illustrates the media (FOX News) using of the phrase. So if there is no written section about the media "dubbing" the Incident it can only be represented by a photo, how are we to get one that is for free/fair use (Note: that almost half of the ref used in the article use the word climategate). As far as Contextual significance [97] Climategate became very controversial and garnered lots of media coverage, a screenshot of that term in news coverage would likely be appropriate.--Duchamps_comb MFA 22:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no information conveyed by the image that could not also be conveyed by a sentence of text (like: "parts of the media began to use the term 'Climategate'"). Whether there currently is such a sentence or not is of no importance. If there isn't, I obviously wouldn't know why: either nobody has bothered to write one yet, or editorial process has led to its exclusion for some reason or other. If you feel there needs to be more coverage, you are free to work on the text, within the bounds of editorial consensus of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

[98], [99]

If it is not too much trouble I would like to request that you remove the word "birther" from both the Incident Archive and from my Block log. I find that word terribly-offensive and upsetting and do not feel I should carry this stigma.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if I had the technical power to remove things from logs (which I haven't), I see no reason to do it here. I blocked you for "Obama 'birther' fringe POV pushing". That's exactly correct: you were pushing fringe POV content in favour of the anti-Obama campaign conventionally known as "birthers". If you find association with that campaign offensive, don't associate with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ANI Discussion (Your topic ban of Hkwon)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral notification

As somebody who has taken part in the previous discussions on this topic, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Deucalionite

[100] is that Deucalionite or someone else?It is him[101]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WW II is heating up again

Hello Future Perfect. Since you previously warned the two editors who are now at WP:AN3#User:Posse72 reported by User:Tbma (Result: ), regarding the Battle of Tali-Ihantala, do you want to comment there on what should be done? It seems to be that an indefinite topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN would be a way to get their attention, but that might not be the only thing to try. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Not much time now to look at it right now, but as far as I'm concerned, go and topic-ban away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Done [102]. I did not think that a longer block would do much good, after trying to discuss the issue with both parties. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston has blocked me without an reason, I complyed 100% with wikipeda rules, and this is how im awardedPosse72 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Hkwon topic ban

I am an uninvolved editor who came in response to the kimchi RfC. I do not entirely agree with Hkwon's POV or his editing practice but to dish out an indefinite topic ban for a minor edit war is way over the top. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't think I'd assess that as a minor edit war. Actually, FutPerf, I was wondering if really topic banning only one user is really the way to go here; it looked like there was excessive edit warring from other users also. Is there a reason we shouldn't be issuing similar bans to other long-term edit warriors here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, but the page WP:TOPICBAN states "Topic bans are a kind of editing restriction imposed either by the Arbitration committee or by community consensus as usually determined on one of the two active administrative notice boards: WP:ANI or WP:AN. " I don't recall seeing any discussion of this issue on either ANI or AN, nor does it show up in the archives. Can you please explain how you are able to topic ban Hkwon (as you claimed to have done on his talk page here: [103] [104]) without getting community consensus first? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(I fixed a diff in the comment above). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll say to you that you are now officially banned from issuing any more topic-bans or otherwise passing yourself off as a person that can issue such things. I would like to say to you that if you violate this ban, you will be perminantly banned from all of Wikipedia. But I won't because that'd be wrong, I only say so for rhetorical purposes. Chrisrus (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, talk page comments meant solely to inflame. How nice. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The current disruption at the Korean cuisine articles is part of a long-standing pattern of disputes that has in the past been so violent that I've taken the stance that the whole topic area is de facto under a regime of "discretionary sanctions" similar to that of Eastern Europe, Israel-Palestine and other ideological hotspots, i.e. allowing admins largely carte blanche to intervene with whatever sanctions are necessary. Arbcom or no Arbcom. Whenever I've taken unconventional measures in this field (e.g. at Liancourt Rocks and other articles), the community has upheld them. A topic-ban like the one I imposed is essentially just a delayed disruption block under the normal blocking policy. I'm saying to this editor: "I've got enough reasons that would justify blocking you for a longish time, but for now I won't as long as you stay out of the topic area". We can of course take this to a noticeboard too, if you insist. Or, if you insist I do things by the book, I can just block the person right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why him? Why not the others in the dispute? Because they, in violation of policy, type in thier personal attacks in Korean, and you didn't use Google translate or some such? Just to mention one thing they did wrong. The effect of banning him will be to support those who wish to hide, dismiss, or completely blank all mention of dogmeat in the article on Korean cusine, instead of a compromise to put the practice into it's proper perspective, probably not as prominent as Hkwon would like it, but not swept under the rug as Melon-whozits would probably like to see done. If we let the sources lead, there should be a place in any article on Korean cusine to mention their fifth largest livestock animal, albeit one not at the same level of consumption as beef, chicken or pork, or even duck. These Koreans have very different points of view as to how they want this practice portrayed to the rest of the world, some don't care what foreigners think, and would treat it like any other meat, which is probably going too far, and those (who you would de facto support) who attack any mention of it as lies designed to smear Korean people, who want the practice hidden from foreigners like you and me. That's censorship; that's going too far; that's anti-Wikipedian. I hope you will carefully review the entire incident and see what happened and ban no one or both sides for the sake of what's good for Wikipedia in the long run. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

I don't know anything about Hkwon's activities at other Korean topics besides kimchi, where I've been working closely with him to try to resolve his concerns. I agree that at times he moved into edit warring there, although so did his "opponents," and some of them made comments that I believe were actually intended to provoke Hkwon into edit warring and incivility. And I do think that he was unnecessarily stuck on (what I perceive as) a very small change in wording. But I also believe that he had sincere, good faith reasons for his desired wording.. But I don't see that behavior as being so egregious as requiring a unilateral topic ban.

Now, looking at your userpage, it seems like you embrace the use of non-standard practices to improve the encyclopedia. Maybe I'm too new here too appreciate that. To me, it seems like the project is hurt when something as huge as a topic ban (for Hkwon, I would argue is practically a de facto full ban, as I believe editing Korean articles is his reason for being here) is decided without community consensus, it pushes people to believe that sincere disagreement isn't really tolerated at Wikipedia. With a community consensus (or an absolutely clear violation of policy, like in the case of vandalism or spamming) the decision acquires legitimacy. It lets us say "The community does not tolerate this type of editing." Instead, Hkwon can now say "That FP guy is totally abusing his power" or, even worse, "I bet Sennen Goroshi or Melonbarmonster2 put him up to this" (since SG, for instance, actually threatened topic banning, and almost seemed to be encouraging it), even though neither of those is necessarily true.

I can totally get why it seems to make sense, especially on nationalist topics, to follow your "rogue" approach. I've looked through the history of several Korean related pages (like Liancourt Rocks), and I'm quite familiar with the debate outside of Wikipedia and how, um, insane, it gets. But again, I'd rather have either 1) the community come down on Hkwon and say "No More," or 2) Arbcom declare Korean articles to be under 1RR, just like Balkans or Gaza articles.

I don't know where I want to go with this. My inclination is to take this to AN, because it just seems out of line for an administrator, and, if it's not, you're not in any risk any way. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of running to a noticeboard to fix this type of issue, and I also don't want, as you implied, to go through a long drawn out process if your apparently long and notable experience is correct--that no matter what he'll end up topic banned anyway.

What do you think? Do you really believe Hkwon's behavior was so much worse than the others he was warring with that he deserves a topic ban, and that said ban will really be sustained by the community? Do you really believe you are correct to circumvent policy? Do you really believe that such circumvention is in the best interests of Wikipedia? Your responses are appreciated, as they will help shape (although not necessarily control) my thinking on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. there were several uninvolved editors, of which I was one, who came to the kimchi article as a result of the RfC and who were trying to mediate in a simple but intractable dispute on whether kimch was 'a fermented food'.

Can I suggest that you lift the ban on Hkwon and allow the uninvolved editors to continue the mediation, with the strong suggestion that all the involved editors refrain from editing the article and on the understanding that if we get nowhere we can hand the topic back to you for tougher action. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at mediating this, but it didn't appear to me that it was stopping Hkwon from edit-warring and from personal attacks. In any case, I don't think it's much use talking about this before Hkwon himself has commented on the matter. But I'll keep your suggestion in mind. – BTW, since people mentioned other disruptive participants, I was in fact considering some more sanctions too, but in the end those didn't seem quite so pressing to me, yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be careful in what I say here because I am not sure this is any of my business, I don't like to make other someones talk page into a battlefield and more accusations are not going to help anything, I won't even comment on if I support the topic ban or not. What I will say is that I have previously had a topic ban in place on my account, it probably saved me from an extremely long block due to me not having contact with the editors I was in heated and continued dispute with. I also imagine when myself and the other editor in dispute were blocked, it brought some stability and peace to the articles that we were causing problems on. If the disputes on the kimchi article had resulted in major improvements along with the edit wars, then there might be some arguments for placing sanctions on the article, rather than on an editor, but as far as I can see the disputes have not resulted in any improvements. I can't speak for Hkwon, but if I was either going to be the recipient of a lengthy block or a topic ban, I know which one I would choose. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that either this restriction should be applied fairly upon the disputants, particularly Melonbarmonster2 who has been engaging in controversial edit wars in a multitude of articles related to Korean cuisine, or that this restriction shouldn't be applied at all. I share Hkwon's POV on the basis of many reliable sources that fermentation is a central element in the definition of kimchi, and after you topic-banned Hkwon, Melonbarmonster2 has threatened me of the same happening to me because of my views on this subject.[105] Cydevil38 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. Your topic ban on Hkwon was unjustified and unfair. It is not the job of administrators to decide who is right in an argument and then ban those that they consider to be wrong, this is not how WP works, or at least how it is meant to work. Neither is it particularly useful to ban all editors or lock the article; WP is the encylcopedia that anyone can edit. Please let me stress again that I am an uninvolved editor, along with several others who have commented here. I have no views on whether kimchi is fermented or not, in fact I had never even heard of it before I came to the RfC. I must ask you again to unblock Hkwon so that the normal dispute resolution process can proceed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, neither is Hkwon currently blocked, nor did I sanction him because I decided who was right in the argument. In fact I have no more of an opinion about kimchi than you have. Hkwon was sanctioned because he was edit-warring and acting disruptively in the debate. He is free to comment on the situation and explain how he plans to conduct himself more constructively in the future. Once he's done that, we can talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How's the situation at the article3 dogmeat changed, Mr. Perfect? Chrisrus (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How'd Hkwon get blocked for edit warring/personal attacks 4 days after his last edit? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing now what I probably ought to have done right away, instead of the "topic ban" attempt that people aren't liking. Since he hasn't been editing (neither continuing to edit-war, nor editing constructively, nor commenting), the situation hasn't changed at all: if he were to resume editing now, we have no less reason to expect he'd immediately continue the disruptive pattern, than we had four days ago. Therefore, the block still serves exactly the same preventative purpose it would have served if I had imposed it then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tillman

Since you were the one who removed Tillman's post at Talk:CRU email controversy, I thought you might want to take a look at this. Best, NW (Talk) 21:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

THanks for the warning. I have no problem with stricter limitations on reverts as long as they are applied consistently and I have advance notice of them. To that end, I have to correct your statement that I revert warred as bad as Hkwon the "last few days". Hkwon revert warred with 3 or 4 separate editors all over the same dead horse issue for weeks on end though now it seems Cydevil has taken on the cause. I did make three reverts in response to a revert by Cydevil on the 24th but all the spurts of reverts in the history page I have been involved in were regarding different article issues most of which were all resolved with discussed compromise and consensus. The latest example of this was my exchange with Vulcan on the 22nd. Yes we reverted but we both engaged in discussion and came to a compromise and the article was improved as a result. Older dispute/issues resolved include discussion over TED material.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I direct you to unknown people

That made my day :) --Taivo (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This should really make us quiver in fear :p --Taivo (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on your observation

Of course, the "point violation" here is that Russavia is making the point that nobody, including the person he was "interacting with", seemed to have been bothered by his edits and that they are not objectively disruptive. As a matter of principle, in an issue like a no-interaction ban, I'd go by the principle of nemo iudex sine actore: sanctions are warranted only if the person who the sanction was supposedly meant to protect has actually complained, or at least there is indication they felt offended/annoyed or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like you to note that I explicitly refused to be Russavia's policeman regarding his offensive relitigation of EEML as part of his comments supportive of Miacek. Don't take that to mean I'm not furious. Do take that to mean that coming up on 7 months of my topic ban there are editors who believe we can behave better and editors who have yet to demonstrate the same. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comments on that "Climategate" image. I've already explained the NFCC issues, as have others; I'm afraid this isn't so much an example of people not informing themselves as of people being in denial about what NFCC requires. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

Your accusation[106] is itself a disruption. If you have a problem with me, please take it up on my talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you watching what's going on at Dogmeat, not to mention Korean Cusine?

Well? After your Hkwon ban, how do you feel about it, and what, if anything, are you planning to do about it? I see you as indirectly responsible, Hkwon was so exasperated by this type of thing that he did what he did, which was wrong, I suppose, but now that he's gone who's going to balance out the situation with the Koreans who take the equal but opposite approach? The system is out of balance because you took away one side of it, as Alison and I are not Korean we can't be as effective for complicated but not too hard to understand reasons. Please do something. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your tone is not of a sort that would make me particularly enthusiastic to come to your help. No, I am not continuously observing whatever is going on on those two articles. If you have something particular to complain about, please be specific. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If you did take a look, you might see the ramifications and damage to Wikipedia that can happen when loose cannon adminstators go around not following procedure and rashly banning people without being privvy to all the background and never bothering to get any input and then walking away and leaving a filthy mess and not even bothering to look back and see the results of their actions. Chrisrus (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Come back here once you have something constructive to say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dodona

I added this sentence [107] then this one

[108] based on this source [109] and then Athenean removed the Paleo-Balkan wording and moved it below despite chronological arrangement. Now he's telling me that somehow my edits are the same and he's suggesting that because of that one should go. I'm also trying to convince him that obviously the source when mentioning southern and northern tribes refers to northern Paleo-Balkan(Illyrians, Thracians) and southern ones(Greeks). This is becoming a discussion with too many or arguments, so could you please once again step in and offer your opinion regardless of its content here or here.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian language and User:Windyhead

This guy is like a small fly in the soup. You want to ignore him, but you can't quite dig him out with your spoon and he just keeps buzzing and wiggling around. --Taivo (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused

Future, I've received your message [110].
You've said "Your recent articles such as Defense of Krk airport and Battle of Gospić are highly non-neutral in tone and content".
Can you, please, be more precise? You'll make it easier for me.
Please, assume good faith.
I've tried to use as much as possible precise words to avoid negative etiquetting of the whole communities, but to point to the perpetrators.
So, where do you see non-neutral elements (highly non-neutral????!!) in those articles? Which sentences?
I've referred to the sources I've listed on the bottom of the page.
If you find any line doubtful, please, add {{fact}}.
I've been working so with others here for years, and it worked fine for all involved sides.
Grammar incorrect? Noone's perfect. I try my best, someone always corrects my errors.
I correct others, others correct me.
That's what makes this project as cooperation. Kubura (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon

Do you think you should review your actions here, in terms of the timing of the block you have imposed? Conceded his edits were sanctionable, but the topic ban which you attempted to impose clearly did not gain community support. The block which you then imposed was in fact implemented four days after his last edit, and I suspect that if it were necessary to defend this block you would find it difficult to do so. I have not unblocked (although I considered it) but it might be a sensible approach if you were to reconsider and start over with a level one warning. Not trying to interfere, but his unblock request and comments about it are attracting some attention. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't actually seen he had made an unblock request. Will have a look. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on his page. If you feel strongly that the block lacks consensus or backing in policy, feel free to overturn and no hard feelings. However, personally I'd still prefer some conditions. I don't think a "back to level 1" warning would have been appropriate here, as he had two prior blocks on related problems during the last month alone. Thanks for your collegial approach to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that there are two sides to the discussion, and I will personally just let the block take its course. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it

I was about to close down the discussion myself.--*Kat* (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

24 hours of rest at Ukrainian language from User:Windyhead. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Windyhead block

I understand where you're coming from, but would a final warning on that have been a bit less BITEy? It's not clear that they had been warned formally before other than 3RR issues in the past. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

hmm, I'm not sure "bite" applies to editors who've been around as long as this one, and who have had previous edit-warring warnings. He knew perfectly well that his actions were being perceived as hostile and disruptive, he got a formal warning from Taivo himself earlier today and continued with several further hostile edits afterwards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Better?

Where silly little Not-Much-Future-Left?

[Darkly ] "Better", huh? Would you like to discuss that with my fiercely loyal pet monster ? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

(pausing) - I wonder if we should generalize WP:NLT into WP:No Monster Threats. Lawyers are a form of monster... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Being threatened with a projectile-vomiting monster has got to count as cruel and unusual punishment, surely? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

[Zilla stuffs the little Chris in her pocket, pats him down firmly. Listens to tiny yelps from pocket. Smiles benevolently, showing her gleaming teeth. Even Bishonen is a little frightened. ] Down, Zilla! Stop patting the nice man! That's enough! Bishonen | talk 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

O dear. I don't suppose my little frightened penguin will placate the mighty zilla easily. But what about the teddybear? You see, it has already lived through so much past and is still so present, I'm sure it has more future than 'zilla seems to imply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Zilla always had a soft spot for the little This User Is Afraid. Tenderly gathers the penguin and the teddy into her pocket and leaves several fishapod plushies in their place. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Extenze < Viagra < Cialis < Fleshlight

I was following the conversation on Lar's talk page and would like to share my thoughts a bit (hope you don't mind). First off, I don't think you are biased, perhaps Lar is privy to information I am not, but I have seen you warn people on both sides of the issue - maybe I am simply being ignorant here. Second, I don't think Lar is biased either, but I also understand that it is a very natural, perhaps inevitable, reaction to respond to extremism with extremism. Has Lar done this? Yeah, I think he'd probably admit to being more acidic than usual and I suspect he will detox from the area after the Arbcom proceedings are over. I'm guilty of this as well.

I think a problem, probably in all contentious areas, is that people tend to make snap judgments. No side on any debate is going to be right 100% of the time, but if an admin shows up when one side is correct they may tend to dismiss the other side forevermore. It is difficult to find admins that can walk that fine line without crossing over to one side, but generally I think Lar has done a good job. I just hope that you and Lar can find a way to see eye to eye on things a bit more and hopefully by understanding how people react to extremism you can both avoid that pitfall and lend a friendly hand to those teetering on the edge. Happy admining. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I happen to find this subject title offensive considering it involves a living person. TGL: Can you please refactor this discussion's name? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's offensive? That's more like a compliment! Anyway I've deleted it, but it really was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Perhaps it'd be less offensive if I replaced it with a dead person? ;) TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your debate is amusing, especially since I still have no idea what either the original or the new heading is supposed to mean ;-) But I thank you for your thoughts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Korea under Japanese rule

There is a disagreement whether a translation of the native name belongs conventional_long_name field in Template:Infobox former country. As you had participated in the discussion with similar topic in the past, I'd like to ask your participation. Thank you. --Kusunose 04:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AE enforcement request

Hi, I've left a reply on the AE page regarding your comment and explaining why the report has been made. Varsovian (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalized articles

Dear FPaS, you might have noticed the current vandalizing efforts targeted at the established and stable versions of Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising and Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I saw something light up on my watchlist but didn't look much into it. If you need an admin to deal with it, you'll need to find somebody else please – unfortunately, I'm still prevented by Arbcom of taking any action myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; sorry I didn't realize that. I was just about to write that if anything the situation got worse thanks to the ill-advised action by SarekOfVulcan when I saw your note in his talk page :-) Seriously, why should he be wasting our time? Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, he's doing his job properly. This won't be difficult to sort out, and there's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your intervention. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, when I asked for an "independent editor", I didn't mean to imply that I excluded you from the category! I just wanted somebody without a dog in the fight to evaluate the sourcing, which you've done admirably. If you feel you can make the call on the title as it currently stands, feel free to move it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Except that if I moved now over your protection, I'd be technically breaking an arbcom ruling, so perhaps you could oblige? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll leave the protection in force for now, just in case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

You might find this [111] interesting. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Head of German state government debate

Sorry to bother you with this issue again. You have closed the debate, stating that it should not be reopened. However, if a debate has achieved no consensus, it might well be appropriate to offer more factual information, so that consensus can eventually emerge. I have been checking the English websites of German state governments (seven of which use Minister-President, two use Prime minister, one uses Premier, with three states on which I haven't found pertinent information, and three city states who are governed by mayors). In my view, there should be a place to communicate this information.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not prohibiting anybody from further discussion. It just seemed to me that (1) that particular polling process was doomed to remain stuck, (2) people were generally attributing too much importance to the issue (happens often when people get into a disagreement that is objectively not very important but somehow sparks some people's intellectual curiosity in arguing over it), and (3) levels of unfriendliness were at a level that suggested everybody would profit from a time out. It's up to you, really. As long as nobody starts edit-warring or (worse) move-warring again. As for the findings you mention, if I may give you my personal opinion for a moment, it sounds rather like adding to the general impression that usage is simply variable and undetermined, making the whole discussion moot rather than adding a new decisive argument to it. I wouldn't personally place much value on an argument that each state government's individual decisions (or their website translators) should decide our usage on an individual per-state basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your comments! Maybe it's best to wait for a while and come back to the issue in three or four weeks.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mention

Howdy. Just an FYI I've mentioned you in passing [112] thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion

(Moved from User talk:Lar)

I noticed you still haven't answered the question about ChrisO's conduct, both in incivility and 3RR violations. Why is Minor4th and I in your sights, but blatent violations such as his are not? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are biased. Please explain why you won't address this. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

First off: I don't do civility sanctions. Not my line of business. I find civility policing for the most part inane, unproductive and too often used as a club to silence vigorous debate. If you want sanctions against somebody for incivility, you need to ask somebody else. I didn't propose sanctioning you or Minor for incivility, so I don't see why you would have any problem about me not sanctioning others for it.

That said, here's your diffs: "(1) having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level.; (2) Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area. - warned by Lar to be more civil; (3) Minor4th has been making false claims that I've been "edit warring". (note that the page was then protected for edit warring); (4) See salami tactics for what's going on here., salami tactics being a derogatory reference to divide and conquer; (5) *Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things, Mark." Starting from the end. (5) was an error for which he later apologized. Dealt with. (4) is not objectionable in the least, certainly not incivil. In (3), Chris is right, you are (and were) wrong. Chris made two reverts, possibly three (technically). Here's the history of the page:

1. Chris starts the page
2. several others, including Minor4th, make bold edits. (Legit in principle; no more and no less unilateral than anything Chris did before and after; but in Minor4th's case, partly quite tendentious)
3. Chris' second sequence of edits, involving partial reverting and partial reworking of Minor's edits (that's technically a revert, but much less aggressive/unconstructive than a blanket rv)
4. Minor4th blanket-reverts everything Chris did, citing "BRD". (Of course, if M. reverts here, they can hardly complain of Chris reverting earlier. And a blanket rv is always more of an aggressive act than a partial reworking revert.)
5. Chris blanket-reverts. (Yes, that's an aggressive, edit-warring-type rv, but not worse than the previous)
6. You blanket-revert. (That's clearly edit-warring at this point, and your invoking of "BRD" was abusive: BRD is never an excuse for second and subsequent reverts, no matter whether the other side has kept to the BRD protocol or not.) At this point, it's two reverts for Chris and two for you and Minor. You were even. I'm counting the two of you together, because you were clearly acting in tag-team.
7. Chris resumes editing, marking his edits as attempted compromises. I don't know how much in that sequence was technically again a revert, but I have no reasons to doubt it was indeed a good-faith attempt at finding acceptable compromises, and as such not aggressive edit-warring.
8. Chris reverts several times against a putative Scibaby sock. Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know. You may disagree with the practice of treating apparent Scibaby socks as such on sight, but that's the usual practice, and two entirely neutral admins subsequently validated Chris' decision (by blocking the sock, and protecting the page). Your claim that the page was subsequently "protected for edit-warring" is patently wrong: it wasn't protected for edit-warring, but semi-protected against the socks. That vindicates Chris' edits, rather than reflect negatively on them.

So, your or Minor's claims that Chris was edit-warring were baseless, and Chris was right to complain about them.

Going back to diff (2): not incivil in the least. Certainly not particularly friendly, but not incivil. Finally (1): if Chris feels Marknutley's poor knowledge of history is a pertinent fact in explaining the problems in the matter of that RfC, then of course he needs to be able to talk about that problem in some way. It's never a particularly friendly thing to talk about somebody else's incompetence, but when it's pertinent it's necessary. I don't know what particular gaps in knowledge M.n. had shown (something about the democratic constitution of early north American states, I gather), and I don't know if those things are supposed to be high school level stuff in US education; maybe that phrase was a bit of a rhetorical exaggeration, but judging from what I've seen of M.n. I can't say I find it implausible that the charge was correct in principle.

So much for that. And no, I for one will not userfy that article for you. I didn't "cherry-pick" links but gave you exactly those that were obviously pertinent: the two reinsertions of the offending material. If you need anything else in particular, let me know and I'll look it up.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring complaint was about a completely separate page, see this diff, at Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, with ChrisO complaining here after Minor4th brought up the same editing pattern[113][114] as in the Virginia article. The diff I cited originally had nothing to do with the article you referred to, but to the Monckton article, as is clearly shown in the diff. As to the purported sock, the evidence consists of "The usual" and there has not been a check-user completed. If this is a new user, they may have been fed up enough to just walk away. If it is a sock, then by all means, they should be blocked, but blocking someone based on "The usual" is by no means providing any useful evidence of sock-puppetry, and the problem with the activist faction is that anyone that disagrees is subject to being sent to an SPI. The supposed sock in this case removed a sentence that was unsupported by a ref, and the very first response by ChrisO was that it was an obvious Scibaby sock. How is it obvious from one edit that the user was a sock? As far as diff #1, that is obviously an uncivil remark, stating that someone has less than a high school education. It is blatant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misread something then about the edit-warring claim (probably because Minor kept making similar accusations about the other article too, IIRC). Okay, I count four reverts by Chris, if I include the first he made against the IP, towards the end of all that. Apart from that, I see several people trying to make productive edits in quick succession, but no hostile edit-warring between them, and Minor4th (as Chris rightly remarked) making shrill protests from the sidelines, not because he had any concrete objections against Chris' edits, but because it was Chris who was doing the editing. A neutral administrator dealt with the situation, explicitly declining to sanction anybody, evidently because he recognised it was essentially a constructive and good-faith editing spree between several persons. So, what's it to me? And yes, when Minor4th claimed Chris had made 7 reverts, he had in reality made 4, so Minor's accusation was, indeed, false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to get anyone sanctioned and my concrete objection was that Chris reverted 7 times. I was not the only one who complained either -- and the reason my shrill objections were being made about Chris is because it was Chris who was reverting like a madman and making edits at the speed of light when the article had just come off protection. Are you really going to say that editing was not appropriate? It's why the article got protected again. A neutral editor dealt with the situation by protecting the article again -- my accusation as indeed not false at all. It was 7 reverts. Diffs [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. [120]. [121], [122] Ok, actually it was 8 reverts and that is not including the one BLP revert. Minor4th 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of "Reverts of banned users don't count, as you well know" is unclear? And I thought we were making a fresh start? "I... apologize as well for not assuming good faith in your actions. I have decided to make a more concerted effort to assume good faith on your part and see if that helps the situation." [123] That didn't last long, did it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to fight with you, and I have assumed good faith since I said that -- so in that spirit, I am not going to counter what you said or try to make another point at all. I would not have mentioned you except for the fact that I'm being taken to task over this past incident with you. So maybe we all ought to just let it lie? Minor4th 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Sleeping dogs and all that. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: subsequent edits in a row always count as one when it comes to counting reverts. I thought you knew that. If you didn't, you know it now. – Chris: was the IP on the Monckton article also a banned user? (not that it matters much now, just for the sake of clarity.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The IP appears to have been Monckton himself, who was indeffed a long time ago for legal threats and chronic COI problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read any of the above but I did want to apologize for calling you "she" -- it has nothing to do with you blocking me. I think it is the word "sunrise" in your user name and for some reason that made me think female. Minor4th 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. BTW, the explanation for the "sunrise" is here [124]. Oh and, I only noticed afterwards that Lar had been referring to you as "she", when I'd been using "he" all the time, so sorry if that was wrong too? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OT: Thank you for making me watch some old Loriot sketches - i had forgotten how hilarious they were. (the yodeling one is here[125]) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not wrong. Lar calls me he, she and they. I don't bother correcting. Minor4th 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I called BRD, it was my first revert. I posted that on the talk page even before I made the edit. Minor4th 06:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, never said anything against that. It was a first revert. Not a very constructive one in the context (as I said, that's an issue of blanket revert vs. going to the effort of making only partial reverts), but in and by itself it was obviously nothing to worry much about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, for the record, my comments concerning Marknutley's lack of knowledge related to some of the diffs that Pmanderson posted, especially this one in which MN asserts that "The Greek city states were not democracys [sic]." Honestly, the mind boggles - who does he think invented the concept of democracy, and where does he think the word came from? You would think that someone who wants to edit an article called List of wars between democracies would actually have some idea of history and (even if he doesn't know all the details) would be sufficiently motivated to open an encyclopedia - heck, even look it up on Wikipedia - and get the facts. This is extreme incompetence, both in terms of a lack of knowledge and also in terms of an apparent intellectual laziness in not being willing to look up a basic fact that a high school kid should know. You've heard of the sword-skeleton theory? Case in point. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris that is really not nice at all. Please don't be so insulting. Minor4th 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but it has to be said. If Marknutley does not know enough about a subject to be able to contribute effectively he should either (a) educate himself about it or (b) stay out of it. The problem is that either of those outcomes requires him to be aware that he is not contributing effectively. It's for just this reason that I avoid editing articles where I don't know anything about the subject matter. I'm well aware that I'm not competent to contribute to them. There's a famous learning model (see [126]) which I think is relevant in this sort of situation. In the language of that model, Marknutley seems to be at the stage of "unconscious incompetence" in relation to historical knowledge. If he becomes aware of this, he can get to the stage of conscious incompetence. This is the stage I'm at with topics I don't know enough about to be able to contribute competently. I assume by default that I'm consciously incompetent in a new topic area, unless it happens to be one I'm already familiar with. Mark seems to assume competence in all topic areas, which is why he makes ridiculous howlers like the one I pointed out above. If Mark wants to be able to do competent editing on such topics, he needs to study it so that he can achieve conscious competence and ultimately, hopefully, unconscious competence. The whole point of an RfC is to point out where an editor is failing; by doing so, he has a chance to remedy the problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Old vandalism

You say "how did this slip through" for re some 4-month-old vandalism. I don't think this is all that rare. I recently corrected two two-year-old vandalizations: childish name change and probably politically motivated.

There are also good-faith content errors which have persisted for quite long times. For example, editor Wetman believes (mistakenly, I think) that Urrecht means "(supposed) rights to territories inhabited since 'time immemorial'"; whereas it actually seems to mean "natural law" (synonymous with Naturrecht). discussion This has made it into two articles: one incorrectly, the other correctly (but ambiguously). --Macrakis (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, not sure about the urrecht, but I'm sure you're right about the old vandalism. Sigh. BTW, does a dictionary definition of urrecht help? [127] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment noted

[128] It wasn't my intention to do so, but you are right, i shouldn't have commented at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're in the mood

I just noticed a heated discussion on Talk:Congress_of_Berlin#Ethnographic_maps, which is about to get ugly quite fast. I know you had to deal with similar situations in the past, so you might be the best person to resolve the dispute. You're bound to find it quite familiar and easy to deal with. I know you're somewhat busy, but if you're in the mood...--Laveol ^T 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

and apparently also against special rules that had been agreed here

Not that I know. What are you talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to something BozMo linked to in your talk page, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive4#Comment refactoring. It looked to me like it gained consensus at the time. Let me know if it didn't – I'm not too familiar with all the goings-on in this area over the last months. (Even if it didn't, the main point still stands, btw.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PA

I draw your attention to [129] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnice indeed. However, please have a look at what I said at the beginning of the thread #Moved discussion above – I'm not normally very interested in doing civility sanctions. Probably that's because I'm so much of a grumpy incivil old bastard myself. Not really worth rising to the bait. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please stop the situation at RFE. Lar and Franamax should not be allowed to comment so long as they are also agressively excluding other admins through wikilawyering, particularly with the arbcom case sorting this out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polargeo (talk • contribs)

(archive time stamp:) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be afraid, little user

(Not giving the IP) but your meta-complaint on User talk:TenOfAllTrades is so true, and so elegant. Deserves to sit in Bishzilla's pocket together with Heimstern Läufer's incivility essay ! bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

Hey guys. Seems my ears were burning! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. By the way, I hope Her Zillaness doesn't object to my taking her name in vain here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha. [Bishzilla getting peckish. Absentmindedly eats the dead horse. ] Heimstern Läufer grand master of paths and thickets of wikipedia! Impressive! bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

Nuke request

Thanks for that. Photos from five different DSLRs just wasn't right. XLerate (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for unblocking me, I was convinced people were happy to see me blocked. If I was still blocked (and was still blocked until 5 pm tomorrow) I would not have had a chance to apologise and try to sort something out and expand an article. I'm not saying what I said was acceptable nor thatI shouldn't have been blocked but I do think that something needs to be done and something written into the NPA criteria which distinguishes between a provoked or unprovoked attack. I'm happy to forget this situation but I think that the blocking criteria should be reduced to 6 hours for such an obvious comment used in frustration at receiving a speedy warning. There is a difference between launching a full scale personal attack/rant at somebody innocent and saying something unplesant in the spur of the moment in removing an article warning I think. That's not to say that it is acceptable to attack or call anybody any name but I do believe there is a difference and I think in future this should be a criteria for deciding upon blocking duration. What happened earlier was a moment of anger/frustration and did not need 24 hours or even an hour for me to calm down. Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Really need your help

With your thoughts on biographies of footballers and everyone else. User_talk:Sulmues#Kosovo_as_country_of_birth. Usually I come to you when I'm lost. Thanks! --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:2007apm

I got an e-mail from User:2007apm asking me to take a look at the block carried out following this SPI (February 2010). The initial e-mail was back in February 2010 and nothing was done then, but the user e-mailed again recently (August 2010) and I'd like to try and sort this out. Would you be able to take a look at this and see how strong you think the evidence is connecting the accounts? The dates of editing don't quite seem to match the usual pattern here as far as I can tell. I'm asking you because you blocked most of the Emperordarius socks. I've asked the blocking admin and SPI clerk User:MuZemike to have a look as well. You could both comment on his talk page where he has filed several unblock requests that were declined without considering whether the initial identification as a sock was correct or not. If there is evidence that shouldn't be discussed on-wiki (to avoid revealing how certain behavioural identifications are made) please feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've commented on his page. This doesn't look like a convincing sock case to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you are still around, could you e-mail me, as I need to discuss a few other aspects of this, including explaining some of the material he just posted on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me, although I have to say it's getting quite late at night here and I had probably better go to bed soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied. You probably have enough information now, but (obviously!) feel free to go to bed, I should get some sleep as well. :-) Sorting this out can wait until tomorrow if need be, another day won't hurt after 6 months. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely

...both with your suggestion on my talk page (meta-irony notwithstanding), and with your action at Hipocrite's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FP: you should either have left it all for Hip or you should remove all the problematic comments. Leaving some behind shows your partisanship. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed those in which the polemic and inflammatory portions (from either side) appeared to be the predominant element. Dave souza's was primarily about reasonable advice and opinion about civility issues, and only contained some rather mild and factual criticism of Greg and yourself. Your own comments were removed because (a) they were part of a thread that had begun with some nastiness already from the other side, (b) you were fighting with TOAT rather than saying anything constructive to Hypocrite, and (c) you had been asked to stay off his page anyway. Which is a request I'll repeat to you now (and if you don't want to do it voluntarily, you can get it in form of an official administrative warning too.) Also, you should of course not be removing postings whose only possibly objectionable aspect was that they contained some criticism of yourself. Really, what were you thinking? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to the criticism of me that are left in there, if the factual criticism of other editors about ChrisO and Hipocrite is redacted. It is not fair, and it appears that you are taking sides in the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop digging yourself deeper. And yes, I am taking sides. I am taking sides in favour of using Hipocrite's page for the sole legitimate purpose that it now has, while he is upset and away: saying constructive things to him that are likely to reconcile him and the community. Nobody should be using that page for fighting out other issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FP: you should either have left it all for Hip or you should remove all the problematic comments. Leaving some behind shows your partisanship. Not much more to say, really. That comment of dave souza's needs to go too. Be a mensch instead of a factionary. ++Lar: t/c 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. Dave's wasn't problematic. Yours was. What is problematic on that page and what isn't isn't for you to judge, because you are deeply involved in a personal conflict with H. End of story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not your place to judge either, as you are deeply involved (if we use your metric), and you've taken sides as well, something I've not done. So, removing all or none was the right approach. None being preferable. I realize you're not going to concede your bias. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating it another million times will not make it truer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing will "make it truer" since it's already completely true. I realize you're not going to concede your bias, though, so further repetition is pointless, unless you do something similar in future, in which case further action beyond talk may be necessary. Hope that helps clarify matters. As for being "deeply involved in a personal conflict" with Hip, that assumes facts not in evidence. Hip acts badly from time to time and I call him on it. That's not personal conflict, that's run of the mill adminship. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ban

im here to improve wikipedia articles. you cant give me a ban, bacause you have not any reason for that.--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can most certainly be blocked if you continue revert-warring, and most likely will. It has nothing to do with your subjective desire to improve Wikipedia articles, but with your failure to communicate constructively to reach consensus with others. But I notice you have self-reverted your latest edit, which I thank you for, hoping I can take this as a signal of good will on your side. This said, I'd probably not be doing any blocks myself anyway at this point, because in the meantime (after I warned you) I also opted to engage in the content discussion on that page, as you may have seen, so I'm no longer as "uninvolved" as I was. That doesn't mean you shouldn't heed the warning though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, I got quite swiftly blocked by Fut. Perf. soon after I started here. Since then I've come to realise he's one of the better admins here. It's a good idea to listen to his advice. Varsovian (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

he may be a good person or admin but he doesn't allow people to improve articles.--Finn Diesel (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that what you view as an improvement may not be viewed the same way by others. We have to collaborate with others here, not just do whatever each of us individually thinks is right. That's what our edit warring policies, which are indeed grounds for blocking, exist. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

dear admin, the copyright problem about "File:Buda es Attila.JPG" has been fixed. please protect the page against Richard. as we all know he is not here to improve medival european history. thanks.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see that the OTRS people have yet processed and approved of the copyright info. It's still marked as "pending" (although I have to admit it's a shame it's taking this long.) But independently of that, there is now also a content dispute over whether the image is suitable for the article. Several users have said they just don't see it as a useful addition to the page. And since I have expressed my own editorial opinion on this, and agree with the objections, I will of course not take admin action about it, either for or against the inclusion. But as an editor, I ask you to respect the consensus against the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

i respect all users and all art works in wikipedia but i cant see any respect to Hungarian art works in articles. it is not an acceptable policy for Hungarian users in wikipedia..--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See, when you get to the point your edits are based on nationality, ethnicity and the like, we've got a problem. The point of Wikipedia is to leave all your national perspectives at the door and edit free of your national POV. Of course, no one can ever really achieve this perfectly, but at least getting close will allow it to be checked by others. "it is not an acceptable policy for Hungarian users" suggests editing for the sake of nationality and not neutrality. That just isn't how things work here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are mentioned (in a nice way). Keep up the good work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Toddst1_misconduct RIPGC (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What!

You didn't even give me a chance to speak. How is that fair or appropriate behaviour for any administrator. (olive (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

You misunderstand the nature of AE, and of discretionary sanctions. AE is not a court of law, and discretionary sanctions are not bound to any particular process involving extensive discussion. AE only exists as a convenience measure to alert admins to situations that otherwise they wouldn't notice, and to provide a format for discussion if discussion is needed. Discretionary sanctions can be enacted any time, by anybody, even quite "out of the blue". And it is my conviction that they work best when they are fast and immediate. Don't worry, I spent a considerable amount of time looking at the situation today, and I think I have a fairly clear understanding what's going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not misunderstand, that you did not give me a fair chance to comment. Nor could you possibly understand what is going on those pages. If you do and acted as you did then I have serious misgiving about your neutrality. I can only assume that you acted thinking you knew what the situation was. I will say again you sanctioned me unfairly based on a generalized complaint with out giving me time to rebutt whatever the allegations were. I don't even know that. I find this entire situation to be unconscionable.(olive (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Could you change your wording in "bizarre dialogue about twisting other editors' words"

It would be sufficient that you say "bizarre dialogue". Otherwise, I see it as a support for Yobol's attack against me, which is breaking policy. All the statements on my side in this dialogue was centred on what the other editor wrote (in diffs). I never attacked the editor personally. I never suggested that he creates a bad environment. I never accused him of twisting my words. There was no confusion possible about what Yobol wrote in these diffs. They were very simple statements, not subject to misinterpretation or "twisting". Yobol kept saying that his position about the lead did not change. Fine, but his non ambiguous statements were nevertheless highly relevant in the ongoing discussion about this lead. In particular, the statement http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&diff=376686243&oldid=376684444 was about the article, but it also had a strong implication on the lead because of WP:LEAD. However, Yobol was not aware of all aspects of this discussion, so it could not appreciate that. I don't understand why he accused me of twisting his words. This is a personal attack against me. It breaks policy. Please do not do the same. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you object: it was a piece of bizarre dialogue, and it was clearly about the topic of twisting other editors' words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am saying, please, remove this part where you mention Yobol's accusation. It has been very unpleasant and I think the best is to have people forget about it. Isn't it the policy that when there is accusations like that, one should edit the text to remove them. So, in the same line of thought, please don't mention it again. Please. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of another editor twisting one's own words is not a personal attack. It's a piece of criticism. People twist other people's words on Wikipedia all the time. Usually not on purpose. It happens. It's no reason for drama. If somebody else tells you they feel you have been twisting their words, the best response is to make an effort to stop twisting their words. Which is what I recommend you do. Not to raise even more drama over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't twist his words at all, but of course I would certainly be careful to never do that, more than ever before. I would really appreciate that you take out the twisting part. Why can't you do that? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)