User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 18

I've finally finished a major expansion of the inner German border article - it's the 20th anniversary next month of the border being opened and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at the article and let me have any comments on how you think it could be improved. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This user, whose block recently expired, has left a note for you (in Greek) in the form of an unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats because i noticed on some articles that included historic tallest buildings, that they included the ethnic names. So i added the historic names, and not just german crap, to the articles. Then it was quickly reverted so i just layed off since people didnt seem to think it was a good idea. Can you please familiarize yourself with the LUCPOL situation. He created the article on MAUS about 4 years ago and he seems to be the only one editing it. I have posted many disscussions on his talk page, but im not sure i can understand his poor grasp of english, which by the way i try to correct on articles he has created (which exclusively deal with Silesian topics), and it quickly is reverted.-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He lied about one of the two english sources he added, well actually none of the english sources he added to that article say anything about MAUS. The one he lied about was supposedly a link to Eurostat, but was instead a link to a polish website entitled Urban Audit.org. He has labeled me a vandal twice in the past day on the same article in his edit summaries. All seven external links on MAUS are to Polish websites. All Seven sources are in Polish. There is a policy on this, stating the necessity for English sources. -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this last point is a misunderstanding: there is no policy against non-English sources. Non-English sources can be just as reliable as English ones. English ones are preferred where available, for practical reasons, but non-English ones are allowed wherever needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How is someone supposed to identify and verify information in a source if its in an unintelligible language?

-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed how if someone even so much as edits one of the articles he created, he will quickly revert all changes. (example: [37] -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I come onto wikipedia today and this is the first thing i see:

• User talk:R9tgokunks#Your vandalisms again Four times in two days he calls me a vandal and my edits vandalism.

-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yet again: [38]

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

Hello FP. You have commented on this article. Question: it uses Google search results, are these acceptable in-article references? If so, do you have a guideline link? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite uncommon, to say the least. The whole thing strikes me as rather OR'ish. Of course, one might argue that the google books search result is just a shortcut to many actual, legitimate sources, which one could just as well quote separately. But as soon as there is some implication that these search results are somehow representative of different stances in scholarship, it becomes essentially an OR argument, especially if, as here, it appears coupled with a more or less self-made

WP:SYNTH

argument about how these different terms do or do not refer to essentially the same thing.

But in any case, this is just my outsider's 2c, and I do not really intend to start editing that article or engaging in the debates there. I'm basically still just watching this whole thing from the neutral-administrator perspective, just trying to figure out which parties are engaging in constructive sincere discussion in search of true NPOV and which do not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note its not Google search but the much more reliable Google Books, the point was to answer criticism that those terms don't exist. Instead of giving one example - which can be easily done (and added to current refs), I wanted to show that they are actually widely used (and none shows a clear dominance). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked about this ref'ing issue at the Village Pump policy page. Further discussion is probably better held there or at the article talk page. Thx for reply, Novickas (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I should've read the policy in detail before commenting on it (but read on...). Policies change. The section you were basing your argument on (I presume the "What vanishing is not" at

I'm interested in your reasoning behind that close, with respect to this edit. Your close says "I am ruling that this image is in the PD." Your edit to the file says "But I might be wrong." I also note that you asked Stifle about his closure, and expressly said you would be uncomfortable with two opposite closures of apparently equal nature. Was there a reason you chose to do it anyway? ÷seresin 20:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's put it like this. I personally find the PD argument convincing, I seem to remember having read about this as being a commonly accepted argument somewhere previously too, and I'd say it's strong enough that in the absence of a clear legal refutation, and in light of the overall voting situation on that IFD, it makes the whole thing at least a "no consensus" keep. I'm open to be convinced of the opposite if anybody knows of an authoritative source showing that this is not a valid interpretation. In that case, we'd have to re-evaluate the whole thing on the basis of the fair use claim, which I find weak, but it's worth keeping the fair use argument around for later reference. As for the divergence with Stifle's closure, I talked with him, and he seemed of the opinion there was a better case for this image than for the other (though perhaps not for the exact reasons I'd find compelling); on the other hand he didn't seem inclined to reconsider his closure, and I don't care enough about it to go to DRV to challenge him about it, so unless somebody else goes there and challenges either mine or his, we'll probably have to live with the contradiction. I have no big stakes in this either way – you know I'm normally a deletionist hardliner when it comes to NFC things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FPaS, would it not come down to who was responsible for the operation of the video camera on which the subjects were captured? If the video camera is operated by a federal agency, such as the Department of Transportation, then it would be PD-US-gov. But if it is operated by a local government agency, then it may well indeed be protected by copyright, depending on whether state govt materials are PD or not. But of course, we can't have a situation where the image has both a NFCC rationale, plus a PD template at the same time. Thoughts on that? --

Dialogue

21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the argument was that nobody was actually "operating" the camera at all, in the sense of doing human creative work with it, because it just automatically recorded things without human intervention. No creativity = no copyright. That's in fact independent of the PD-USGov thing. As for the templates, I don't think the rationales do any harm, even if they are redundant as long as the PD claim is considered valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

i am proud for your liquidating intervention there. dunno where the script things came from. keep it up. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You recommed me to ask AN[39], then 2 admins said premature.[40][41] So I obeyed their order like your order. Then I edited too difficult and too nationalitc articles for fulfill their demands as far as I could. And I also obeyed your order from 13:33, 21 January 2009. I handled many dispute without troubles. Please release the topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He posted the same request on my page. I'm looking into it. Would appreciate your looking into it too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing a sample of Bukubku's recent contributions, I'm afraid I can not support a lifting of the topic ban. Bukubku has been editing on highly charged ideological issues surrounding Japan's WWII past that are quite similar to the Korean-Japanese topics he was banned over. His recent edits to Manchukuo [42] and similar pages related to WWII and imperial Japan shows a continuing stance of promoting a clear ideological agenda. This user's goal on this project is POV advocacy, and we don't want yet more of that spilling back into the Japanese–Korean area. Moreover, it is also still true that Bukubku writes very poor English, and many of his edits clearly degrade article quality [43]. This wouldn't normally be such a big problem – we generally welcome non-native writers of English, and tolerate quite a lot of poor English on the way, on the grounds that if the content of the edits on the whole is productive other users will often be glad to correct the formal errors. However, one thing that people with poor English skills should not do is actively edit sensitive hotspots of POV disputes. Negotiating NPOV over such articles requires full active command of the subtleties of the English language both in the wording of article text and in talk page debate. People with English skills at Bukubku's level will generally not be a help in this process, especially not if they come to it with a potentially disruptive POV agenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your comment. My first application time, Rlevse said to me like that few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles So I had to edit difficult issues like JK relations. Are there serious troubles about my editions except for poor English? Point out concretely my POV editions, please. And I talked in talke page. When you blocked me, my edition of Comfort women is not bad grammatically, and I cited from NYtimes. And I provieded for you many sources. In case Manchukuo, I cited from "Twilight in the Forbidden City". The book is very very famous. Please read the book without prejudice. And I didn't conceal Japanese bad things. Certainly, sometimes my editions were not good, however most of my edition is not POV.--Bukubku (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't find the book at libraries, I will send you. I want you to read the book.--Bukubku (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bukubku#Blocked — Rlevse • Talk • 18:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I know this situation is a bit of a mess and I'm sorry for causing it. I honestly believed that site's license allowed for using their content here, and I completely regret misinterpreting it. It was a mistake, but not a malicious one. And I will certainly never repeat it. However, let me be very clear that not one iota of their article on Gigurtu went into the one Dahn and I wrote. Yes, ER and I used largely the same sources. But I independently went to those books and worked directly from those sources myself. Given this, I would kindly ask that you restore the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm quite sure you acted in good faith here, no problem about that. But as for not copying things in this particular article, I'm not very good at Romanian, but to me "Fiul al generalului Petre Gigurtu, a urmat şcoala primară şi gimnazială în oraşul natal, iar studiile liceale la Craiova. Urmează cursuri universitare la Academia de mine din Freiburg şi Charlottemburg, devenind după terminarea acestora inginer de mine. Între 1912 şi 1919, Gigurtu activează ca inspector industrial pe lângă Mnisterul Industriei şi Comerţului. Din calitatea sa de ofiţer, participă atât la Al Doilea Război Balcanic […]" looks decidedly similar to "Born in

Freiberg Mining Academy and the Royal Technical College of Charlottenburg and becoming a mining engineer. From 1912 to 1916, he worked as an industrial inspector at the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce.^[2] During the Second Balkan War in 1913, he was a sub-lieutenant ... " – Sorry, but either you copied from ER, or both you and ER copied from a third source; either way we have a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼

21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm logging off and going to bed now; we can talk again tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't use ER - indeed I didn't even look at their version until after I'd finished mine (and decided there was nothing there worth using). Yes, we both used Stelian Neagoe's work, which is written in a dry, factual tone (without verbs, in fact) - there aren't that many ways of saying he was the son of a general, went to school in Craiova and Germany, and fought in World War I. I can certainly try and reword some of that, but there's already some difference, and I don't know quite how much else could be changed without deviating from the source. See you tomorrow. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Future. I would like to see the article restored in its previous form, given that, in this case at least, the accusation of copyright infringement seems to be bogus - whatever it had started at, it had become something completely different, and, as Biruitorul says, the info that was alleged to closely resemble some other source appears to be dry facts. Even the samples that you cite above are far, far from identical. My own work (which unwittingly included some edits on the text already in there) was entirely lost in the process, and I don't believe my edits had in any way been the subject of any such discussion. I also know for a fact that at least part of Biruitorul's research on this subject was genuine - since it was from sources I had suggested he should use.

Now, I just want to make this comment before we close this matter - close it, because I really resent having to debate any matter with Radufan, even by proxy. The ER project, which apparently started with the frustration of some wikipedia editors that they can't protect their questionable contributions from genuine scrutiny (and obsesses over a fallacy according to which wikipedia is going commercial) includes, among others, former contributors who have made their mark on the Romanian wikipedia with one or both of the following: blatant, obscene, plagiarism of content copy-pasted (not adapted, not translated) from various sources; endorsing and preserving at least one neonazi propaganda outlet as a source for content. Much of this still lingers on the Romanian wiki project, and the users in question took their retreat before they could be held accountable for it (although not before, while still an admin, Radufan himself threatened to block me several times, blocked me once for a whole week, and harassed me repeatedly for bringing this to the community's attention; this even if he was - and still is - in a conflict of interest). Dahn (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, let me attempt to translate the ER fragment you cite above into English, and compare it with Biruitorul's text:

• "A son of general Petre Gigurtu, he attended primary school and gymnasium in his native city, and took high school studies in Craiova. He took university-level courses at the Freibug mining academy and in Charlottemburg, becoming a mining engineer upon graduation. Between 1912 and 1919, Gigurtu was employed as an industrial inspector by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. As an officer, he took part in both the Second Balkan War […]"

• "Born in
  Freiberg Mining Academy and the Royal Technical College of Charlottenburg and becoming a mining engineer. From 1912 to 1916, he worked as an industrial inspector at the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Commerce. During the Second Balkan War
  in 1913, he was a sub-lieutenant ... "

Let's note the following: Biruitorul's version offers more (and more accurate) detail than the ER sample, and, unlike it, actually cites a source, with an exact reference. The measure to which they are identical puts to the test the limits of one's vocabulary - in just how many ways, without randomly cutting down relevant info, could one possibly phrase a bare and exact text? That bare and exact text most likely follows from the source: the clues are that Birutorul went directly to the source - he, unlike ER, spells out what school Gigurtu attended in Charlottenburg, and gives his exact rank in the Army. As Biruitorul himself put it, ER editors are not the only ones who can read a book. And, btw, the main reason why I would think one hasn't and can't be copying the ER in this instance is the exceptionally poor quality of the ER article: they call the city Charlottemburg, they spell the word Ministerul as Mnisterul etc. In fact, given that the ER article has stereotypical, jingoistic, antiquated and bombastic references (WWI is referred to with the fallacious title "the War for Integrating the [Romanian] Nation", the antisemitic agitator A. C. Cuza is referred to as "Professor Cuza", and so on), it may turn out that it is the one uncritically copying one source it may or may not cite in its bibliography. Dahn (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored the edit history then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dahn (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeeezzz. I logged yesterday to Wikipedia, not all of us watch and work on it 24hours a day. It will take time before I respond to everything--Molobo (talk) Also what does it mean to strike out ? Is it like this "------" ? I know only basic editing functions on Wikipedia, so I don't know how striking works, and would need instructions.--Molobo (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Ok I stroke that out, although I for my defence must say it looks very similiar to Polnische Bande or Banditen that was used by Nazi propaganda. I trust that per your comment you will stroke yours out also ? Also since you know German well-what does the sentence Wirklich verübeln kann man es denen aber nicht, die wurden bis in die Neunziger so geimpft daß eine neutralere Sicht schwer fällt. mean ? --Molobo (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

""das spricht Bände" actually meant? " An so the bandits speak. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the mergeto tags that I added to

You deleted the entry on the film American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi. While certain sections did have clear similarities with an entry found on Facebook, the factual content remains the same and corroborated by references. The information box, the reviews, the history, the style sections are all in the public domain now as facts. It is also established practice to first inform the page's creator before you delete the entire entry. Why did you not do this? Let's avoid abritration here. Please re-instate the page to allow for the appropriate edits to take place, and we can then reach some kind of consensus. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacnewton7 (talk • contribs)

Uhm, no, sorry. Both the first version I deleted and the second version you re-created in the meantime (and which I have now deleted too) were clear copyright violations, as far as I can see more or less in their entirety. Obvious copyright violations are subject to

policy on biographies of living people you must avoid turning it into an attack page on Rice – this means you need to strictly avoid anything that would imply the article endorsing the criticism of Rice made by the film. Fut.Perf. ☼

19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for rewording the Physical Characteristics section. I believe it is much more appropriate in this manner and functions to create a unifying potential between various divided populations. An assortment of propaganda sources have created artificial socio-cultural fault lines between peoples throughout the world, and I believe it is our job as Wikipedian editors to ensure that statements are made in such a way as to not suppress nor diminish the connection we all have with our largely common heritage. I believe Wikipedia itself functions to unite people in the strategic sense (long term), whilst on a tactical level (short term) it is inevitable that we sometimes come into friction with one another. That said, we are all here to create a community of nations, to respect each other and to treat all ethnic/cultural groups with a sense of justice, temperance, fortitude and wisdom (the four classical ideals). Perhaps this is the surest way to building a global society that is largely modeled on the global forum herein. Thanks again for your help and I hope you and I can constructively work together in the future. You are obviously intelligent, and I value your contribution to the article.--Monshuai (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help, and thanks really go to you for doing the legwork of figuring this out! I only asked the question. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This text from the Austrian Science Fund seem so be pretty interesting. I saw you reverted it, and you did rightly so. The text was formulated in a way that NPOV seemed questionable. However, mentioning that such a research is currently being made by this Austrian organization seems to be a good idea. What do you think? (BTW I do not know the history of RashersTierney who added the link and you, so I will try not to be part of that discussion) —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The link was added by socks of

Balkan linguistic union article or the the relevant section of the Albanian language

article.

An interesting little observation on the side, by the way: there's a remark somewhere there that they believe there's some evidence of postposed definite articles in Proto-Albanian already in antiquity. I looked around a bit to find out what they might mean by that, and found references to an article by Hamp from 1982 about "The oldest Albanian syntagma". I haven't been able to read it yet, but from citations of it I find on the web, it seems Hamp was referring to some document of Moesian. Which means if he and the Vienna guys were treating that as a piece of evidence relevant to proto-Albanian, they must be among those who regard Moesian rather than Illyrian as the linguistic ancestor. Just so you guys know what you're buying into ... ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. You seem to be competent enough on the issue. I personally do not have any "preferred" hypothesis about Albanian language origin. I am familiar with Hamp's work though. I know that he was a real "fan" of Thracian-Albanian hypothesis. And later on, when some sentences in Thracian were found, and no relation of them with Albanian was found, I know that his research shifted. His most recent published book on the issue (in Prishtina 2007) leans more towards the Illyrian-Albanian hypothesis. Though not leaving aside other theories. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I do not see how is RashersTierney a sock of User:Dodona. He seems to be a user for a year, and no edits on anything even related to Albanian, Illyrians or similar. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, RashersTierney isn't a sock, of course not. He was just a well-meaning passer-by who tried to improve the addition without being aware of the background. The passage was first inserted by this IP, who was a Dodona sock, and then incidentally edit-warred back in by another unrelated banned user [44], a User:Wikinger sock, who has a habit of randomly reverting anything I do from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, cool :) —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:Jimbo Wales. To me, looks like typical sock behaviour.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Yes, very sockish behaviour indeed. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Notonekilled was quite disruptive - thank you for blocking them.Autarch (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there no way to stop this user creating more accounts and continuing to be annoying? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The only technical measure would be a range block, but that is often quite difficult and it's usually done only in quite extreme cases (depending on what kind of IP range it is, the amount of collateral damage and so on.) Since the vandalism seemed to be concentrated on a single page, I've semi-protected that, which ought to help some. Apart from that, I can only offer you to come here and give me a shout if he turns up again and you should fail to get a timely response elsewhere. Just saw your remark over at the SPI page about being sent from one place to another – sorry about that; I know this can be damned frustrating. I often wonder what those guys at AIV are doing. But fact is, SPI is such a slow and bureaucratic monstrum. In fact, I've been working it today only because I've got a report of my own sitting at the bottom of the backlog and wanted to speed up things a bit so my colleagues will finally process that... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise they were operating from a wide range of IPs. Note also that they have been vandalising AIV as well, which I'm not watching. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, I've blocked IP address 79.191.252.68 for 48 hours for reverting your multiple edits on Greek alphabets. See Special:Contributions/79.191.252.68. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Obviously another User:Wikinger sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems a Dodona style activity is recently active in Moscopole [[45]]. I've reverted this edit once, but the editor seems too enthousiastic about specific sentences in this book [[46]]. Thanks for your time.Alexikoua (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22? Thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@FutPerf. Hehe, sorry, I keep getting these sockmasters mixed up. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This user has similar edits to LUCPOL, and he usually gives inadequete and often misleading edit summaries sometimes one word answers ("incorrect", [47]), while also simply stating "reverting vandal"[48] or the like. And he simply is removing valid content, usually without an edit summary, as seen here: [49] and [50], [51] and [52]. Specifically these edits he tries to portray a knowledge of a "historically accurate consensus", which there was none "consensus" on the talk page, but when i point out to him there is none, he changes it to "historically correct version", even though the name he is adding was not in existence until 1945, which is what im trying to say. 1.[53] 2.[54]

my information for this is since it was settled with a Prussian/Germanic name, and also this statement, "It was placed under Polish administration according to the Potsdam Conference in 1945. The town of Braunberg, previously known as Brunsberga in older Polish records, was then renamed to Braniewo." this information is apparent on the german and polish wikipedias as well. -- Hroþberht - picture yourself in a boat on a river... (gespraec) 23:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding this warning [55] you have placed on my talk page. In it you called my actions 'disruptive POV-driven editing'. Can you please clarify how removing phrasing so-called experts attributed to the members of Soviet commission, which is obviously non-neutral and does not exist in the sources, constitute 'POV-driven editing'.

You also placed similar notice on talk page of user Loosmark who already had been placed under formal notice by adminiatrator Thatcher [56]. What the purpose of second-time warning in this case?

Can you please also clarify whether the notice placed in my talk page a formal notification of editing restrictions (similar to that placed by Theatcher on Loosmark) or should be considered merely as a warning.--Dojarca (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed my signature- I often wondered why sometimes it would create a new line. I thought it was because of my widescreen display, but it was due to my extra code. DOH! Thanks!

To add, I just got Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State, and it is far better than I thought it would be. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. No worries.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the content issues were being resolved on a talk page. Your review and stricture may be premature because this issue was elevated by another editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

See: findings/ FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Could you please be so kind as to explain how the statement "Varsovian appeared in late September pretending to be a new user, but with all the signs of experience and with an obvious agenda of stirring the shit in Eastern-Europe conflict areas and picking fights with certain Polish users" fits with Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Could you also be so kind as to explain how it fits with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I would also much like to know how using the phrase "stirring the shit" to describe somebody's edits and/or communication fits with Wikipedia:Civility. Furthermore, I note that you say "picking fights with certain Polish users (especially User:Jacurek and User:Loosmark)". Could you please identify Polish users which you feel I have been picking fights with? It may well be that I need to review and adjust the way I communicate with other users here. Thank you in advance for any time which you may be able to spare on dealing with my questions.Varsovian (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please could you be so kind as to refrain from removing my statements from my talkpage. Thank you.Varsovian (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Malicious harassment by banned users gets removed as a matter of routine, period. You showed very poor judgment in even responding to it and not immediately reverting it yourself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By all means remove the malicious harassment by the banned user. I am asking you not to remove my own statements from my talk page. I will be grateful if you can please be so kind as to revert my statement to my talk page.

I note your advice as to my very poor judgment as to responding to the message and not immediately reverting it. Could you please go into detail as to how I should have known that the message was from a banned user? I'd be very interested to know that.Varsovian (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You may not have been aware it was a banned user, but it was plain obvious it was malicious harassment and a forbidden outing attempt. In fact, the parts you restored still contained those elements. Now please go and do something else, because I don't like to spend more time dealing with that person's very tiresome and boring harassment campaign, and by making a fuss over it you are in effect perpetuating it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I 'may' not have been aware? I'm sorry but is there something which you wish to imply by that choice of verb? Please note that I am asking a question there and it is not a rhetorical one. I am more than happy to offer whatever help I am able to offer if you are the victim of a very tiresome and boring harassment campaign but I would be grateful if you could refrain from removing my statements from my talk page. I have now removed all information which contain elements of harassment and left the parts which state that I prefer to converse via talk pages and would be grateful if people could sign their posts.Varsovian (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still thanking a banned user for posting outing attacks to your page, and encouraging him to post again. If you have a sense of decency, you will remove that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was thanking an unknown poster who had not signed his name. However, I shall now edit the post so as to strikethrough the thanks which were initially offered. I hope that this will suffice, please advise if it does not.Varsovian (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on talk page isn't disruptive edit.

I reverted vandalism. Type of vandalism BLANKING - Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. this is not false accusation -- LONTECH  Talk  18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

i dint realized until now i was wondering why you banned me-- LONTECH  Talk  13:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you yet again with this one. You are probably sick and tired of EE Europe mess but since you suspected Matthead of using socks while editing I would like you to take a look at this sudden arrival of anon in support of Mattheads changes.[[57]]. Same editing style, same edit summary tone etc. etc...[[58]]this is so obvious...I'm not asking for anything but just letting you know that your suspicions were not groundless. Regards--

and now this....my conversation with user Varsovian yesterday.[[59]]:

"You really are comedy gold! Firstly, to speak for myself I have no idea which night bus I would take to get home: I use these things called taxis. Secondly my assistant says that you are an idiot (although I would never use such incivil language to you). N24 does not go to Saska Kepa: it goes to Praga-Poludnie. To get to Saska Kepa she would take N72.Varsovian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"

He was just blocked for similar behaviour and edit warring right? [[60]] as well as warned later here[[61]]. Now he goes again and is edit warring against two editors and indirectly calling me an idiot. Future Perfect at Sunrise please advice when you get a chance.--

You may wish to note that I did not call you anything and specifically state that I would never use such incivil language to you. Despite the fact that you have repeatedly accused me of being a troll [62] [63] and a puppet and a liar, I am still being civil to you.

Someguy1221: Does

WP:AGF mean that I should assume that an editor is telling the truth when they say that they live in a particular city or that I should follow the example of Jacurek and assume that they are lying, ask them if they even know what a person from their city is called [64] and then ask repeated questions [65][66][67][68][69]

in an attempt to prove that they are lying?

You may also want to note that Jacurek started this section after the attempt by him and Loosmark to have me banned here [70] were called a "content dispute/conflict" by two uninvolved editors. What a co-incidence!Varsovian (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

F.P.a.S., you may or may not want my opinion here, due to my involvement in

Also F.P.a.S., I have removed content from the talk page which has nothing to do with article improvement, but everything to do with bitching between editors. I think it is plain to see that there is no "right" or "wrong" side here, as they are both in the wrong I think? Perhaps you could use your admin abilities to do what I suggest above (locking the article), as I am sure you are getting sick and tired of seeing this dispute being played out on your talk page :) --

I'm chanting as we speak

18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do lock it while we get outside help. Varsovian (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of locking the article, no problem here and never was. However I will still question how real the account Varsovian is and what is his agenda since from the very beginning of his sudden arrival in September all he did is almost entirely focused on one article and one editor with evidence of very good editing experience.--

Jacurek, start to show some

I'm chanting as we speak

19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Was this Varsovians aim? [[71]]--

No that wasn't my aim. [72]Varsovian (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it now time to mark that thread as resolved? Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, FP. I'm having some trouble over at the

I just noticed that "Marko" is identical with "Markiyan" at this forum where he actually calls for action. This is blatant meat puppetry. (Taivo (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

In investigating, I noted this as an example of the wholesale change in spelling that is happening in many places. While I don't personally oppose the spelling of "Kyiv", it is not the most common spelling in English at this time. It is another case of a nationalist agenda that is trying to steamroll through Wikipedia without respect to consensus or process. (Taivo (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for blocking him. I have deleted my personal information from my user page as well. Is there any way that I can remove that page's history as well so that someone can't just come along and look at a diff to get it back? (Taivo (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Yes you can. See Wikipedia:Oversight for details.Varsovian (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since almost every word of my message to Moreschi [73] can be applied also to you, consider that my proposition to him is addressed also to you. You can take a note from the recently exchanged discussions which describe the issue, have a look at the deleted refs and give a balanced solution. I believe the situation is mature for such a solution and if the text is balanced everybody will accept it since all are tired enough with it and have expended their arguments although the issue is not being solved since the text is just going back and forth again and again. --Factuarius (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why have you blocked Jacurek but failed to take any action against Varsovian who started the whole mess and who called Jacurek an idiot which is a direct civility violation? Thanks. Loosmark (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While I have already said that I want to make no comment about Future Perfect's actions[74] or your comments about me[75], please note that I have already apologised twice for my incivility [76][77] and that I did not actually call Jacurek an idiot.Varsovian (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Jacurek because, after the history of quite unconstructive behaviour and edit-warring on the 1946 parade article, the aggression in this particular exchange appeared quite clearly to come from his side primarily; in particular, his persistent attempt at proving Varsovian a liar about what his username implied was clearly beyond the line. As you know, I too have had doubts about the Varsovian account, but after what I've seen of him during the last few days I must certainly recognise that he is a separate editor personality and not a sock of any other user I'm familiar with. I must also recognise that he has made some positive gestures towards restoring a basis for collaboration, which is more than can be said about his opponents as far as I can see now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Jacurek because, after the history of quite unconstructive behaviour and edit-warring on the 1946 parade article Logic says that both sides were edit warring at least just the same, since Jacurek could have not possibly edit warred with himself. his persistent attempt at proving Varsovian a liar about what his username implied was clearly beyond the line. In my opinion it was not. Varsovian tried to again more credibility for his position in a discussion by claiming that he lives in Warsaw and even wrote(!) books about Warsaw - something that looked very unlikely. To which Jacurek simply asked him if he knows one of the main bus lines in Warsaw, a person living in Warsaw for so long would have known for sure. Varsovian didn't know and that said he was using the cab. (What, for 15 years? It would cost him a fortune). In any case if you thought that Jacurek was doing something wrong you first had to warn him about his behavior giving him a chance to re-adjust instead of immediately striking him with an incredibly severe 1 month block. And the fact remains that Varsovian called him an idiot, and I think mr.Jimbo Wales was very clear in the past that name calling is totally unacceptable.... As you know, I too have had doubts about the Varsovian account Yes I do know that, and I also know what was done to you after you expressed your doubts - something by many magnitudes worse than anything that Jacurek has done. Anyway I ask you to please reconsider your long block of Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still going on about Varsovian lying about living in Warsaw? Well, let me tell you, I just now looked a little bit more into what he did reveal about himself, and I am now perfectly satisfied he is what he says he is. By the way, I think you are also misreading the beginnings of that discussion. Varsovian didn't bring up his authorship of "books about Warsaw" in order to boost his authority in the discussion – how could he do so, when the discussion wasn't about Warsaw at all? – but in order to defend himself against Jacurek's unprovoked accusations, where he insinuated that Varsovian's username implied a lie about his identity. – As for the edit-warring part, yes, it takes two to edit-war, but that doesn't mean both parties are automatically equally at fault. As an administrator judging such situations, it is part of my task to also assess the quality of people's talk page conduct, whether they constructively strive to address and meet the other side's arguments, whether their edits show a serious quest for neutrality and a responsible reflection of sources, etc. On all these accounts, Jacurek's behaviour was worse than Varsovian's. Varsovian's version of the article had OR issues, but at least it was seriously researched, well written, well informed, and less overtly biased overall. As for warnings, Jacurek did have prior warnings, official ones under the DIGWUREN clause. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian's version of the article had OR issues, but at least it was seriously researched, well written, well informed, and less overtly biased overall. I found your comment bizzare to say the least, if an article has OR issues then it is far from being "seriously researched"(!?), "well written"(!?)... etc. In my opinion Varsovian's version was much worse, just compare the article in his current form with the one from September before Varsovian started to work on it. And regardless even if you think that Jacurek version is worse that's basically a content issue and in absolutely no way can justify a severe 1 month block. You say that Jacurek's behavior was worse than Varsovian's, so much worse that the one gets a 1 month block and the other (who called Jacurek "an idiot") nothing? This is just weird. Finally also I don't understand why you bring up the DIGWUREN clause, the article about a military parade in London is cleary not an EE topic area. Loosmark (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm.... "if an article has OR issues then it is far from being 'seriously researched' " – do you perceive the self-contradiction in your statement here? Maybe you have forgotten what the "R" in "OR" stands for. Let me remind you that outside the closed world of Wikipedia, "original research" is not a Bad Thing. Yes, there were OR elements there, and I warned Varsovian about that, but that doesn't contradict the finding that it was well written, nor that Varsovian was the one who engaged in more substantial, more constructive and more to-the-point talk page discussion. – As for the applicability of the Digwuren case, its scope is "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"; this includes any article as soon as the issue of dispute is related to Eastern Europe, even if the main topic of the article is not. Since this dispute was essentially about Polish history, Digwuren is most certainly applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the dispute is more about the history of Poles in Britain (or at least the history of the Polish émigré community) than it is about Polish history, the majority of the western command Poles never returned to Poland. Although I don't actually know what you are talking about when you refer to Digwuren (the only thing I know about Digwuren is that I was warned under its terms).Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN, one arbitration case among the many predecessors of the current mailing list case, where the "discretionary sanctions" clause was first introduced. Didn't I link you to it with my warning? I should have. Fut.Perf. ☼

14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Future, I've seen the Digwuren link as well, but you generally just write

WP:DIGWUREN, which is a long, long page full of details and lots of facts. It's never clear exactly what you're referring to when you link there. It would be helpful if you would link to a specific paragraph. Cheers. (Taivo (talk

) 14:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

do you perceive the self-contradiction in your statement here? I don't think there is any contradiction. While it might be true that outside the closed world of Wikipedia original research is not a bad thing unfortunately in the closed world of Wikipedia in which we operate it is. It's as simple as that. We can't just say that in this particular case Varsovian's OR was good, was ok or whatever. It was bad even more so because he used original researched to dissmiss of the some sources we presented. But again even if Varsovian was the one who engaged in more substantial, more contructive and more to-the-point talk page discussion (something i don't agree, calling people idiot is just ugly and bad, his rants about sources which were written after 2001 made no sense and bordered on disruptive etc) that doesn't justify a long 1 month block. As far as I know the established Admin practice is the first block is shorter, for example 24h. Loosmark (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that your block of Jacurek be reversed. Loosmark (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've stated that while I do not wish to comment on your actions, I most certainly do not oppose Jacurek's request, if any, for such block to be lifted. However, I would like to thank you for your good-faith efforts to improve WP. I'm glad that somebody far more competent than me is an admin. If you're ever in Warsaw, let me know: I'll guide you through the local beers and the the local vodkas!Varsovian (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey FPaS. As best I can tell there was some questioning about whether someone was "authentic" and "qualified" on a subject. That's inappropriate. But what I didn't see was a notesaying, hey, please knock it off and focus on article content. And the discussions I've seen from that editor are otherwise pretty reasonable, so your month-long block seems rather punitive and excessive to me. Admittedly, I'm not up on all the history. But if the disputants can work out their differences and discuss things I think more of an effort from you to resolve and mediate before invoking the tools would have been prefereable. Maybe you can lighten the sentence? Have a great weekend and Happy Halloween. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

FP, would it be possible to remove the attempted partial outing of my identity from the talk page history? I am very much concerned about real-world harm done to me, and the possibility that some editors from the Estonian POV-pushing camp might be able to piece together my identity in order to go worlds beyond

Please e-mail User:Oversight (the oversight mailing list, i.e. arbitrators and a few others). They can do it better than us normal admins, and they usually react quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your opinion of the copyright status of the photos of Fort Victoria and Algonquin on this website (top and bottom photo). Fort Victoria sank in 1929, Algonquin photo dates to 1943-45. Is the first one PD? I suspect that the second one will need to be Fair Use. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to say, I'm afraid, since the website doesn't provide any information about its own sources. To assess PD status, what one usually needs is, at a minimum, time and place of photograph, and time and place of first publication. Without those pieces of information, it's really not safe to assume anything with items from this period. Note that even fair use would be problematic, because NFCC also demands information about the owner of the copyright. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a PD image of Fort Victoria under her earlier name. See File:SS Willochra.jpg. Still looking for useable photo of Algonquin. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Satbir Singh (talk · contribs) - back and reverting. Time to send him home, I think. Moreschi (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, thanks. End of a long-standing problem (fingers crossed). Moreschi (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. After "sleeping on it", I was going to try to figure out what happened, because I noticed last night that the anon had added that image to the article. Thank you for tracking down its provenance. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago you indefinitely blocked User:Markiyan for meat puppetry and a battleground attitude. Today a User:Londain showed up at Talk:Kiev. He made most of these changes: [78]. His account was only created today. In one of the threatening emails Markiyan sent me (he sent about half a dozen more after he was blocked including threatening me with legal action by the Rada, no less), he gave me both a Ukrainian and a London phone number to contact him and implied that he lived in London. At the bottom of the user contribution page, you will see the portion of the website address ".of-cour.se". Markiyan is the webmaster of http://kyiv.of-cour.se/ and Londain's additions are copies of the list of embassies on that web site. Some of his statements and arguments seem to be mirrors of that web site. At this point, Londain's contributions are not disruptive and are courteous. I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on Talk:Kiev to make sure that they stay that way. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Baiting , and taunting.

[79]. What comments were incivil. No one has provided any diffs, which is a direct violation of WP:NPA. You can see it. It would be impossible to miss. Will you be warning them also? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What comments were incivil? Since you keep insisting on diffs, I have finally gone to the trouble of going through all your recent contributions and picked out some of the worst. While you generally manage to stay just below the threshold where people usually get into trouble, I did make a few interesting finds:

• [80] You say that Chilum has admitted using class A substances while editing. Fair enough.
• [81] Baseless warning to RxS who tried to advise you that the community standards regarding drugs are not what you think they are.
• [82] Attacking Chillum with cheap rhetorics ("If you refuse to admit it...")
• [83] Attacking a strawman (I never claimed there was a consensus; I told you there was no consensus)
• [84] In response to Chillum's request to stop insisting on a response to your irrelevant question and file a report, you say: "Asking you a question is not disruptive, but making false accusations is." Also vague claims of personal attacks by Chillum, without diffs.
• [85] Insults and name-calling against Chillum. This is in response to his claim that you are misrepresenting his email to you (you said he was harassing you in it and admitting substance abuse) and his request to publish the full text of it.
• [86] [87] [88] I can't make up my mind if this was sophistry or straight lying (compare first diff), but in any case this was not acceptable.

I doubt that you will find any of this convincing, but perhaps my work will be useful for an admin. Hans Adler 16:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"laughably ridiculous question" From RxS is inappropriate and incivil. The warning is not inappropriate but his comments are. "Attacking Chillum with cheap rhetorics" Also an incivil comment from yourself. "Attacking a strawman" definitely not incivil. "response to your irrelevant question" Definitely reveals your bias and not incivilities. "Insults and name-calling" There is no such thing, but you have crossed

WP:NPA for making claims there is. "You poor victim" is not an insult. He stated that he is being victimized. Stating someone is a bad admin is not an insult, especially when it has been proven by others that he has made a long line of bad judgments. Please provide -actual- incivil comments next time. Ottava Rima (talk

) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You bullied Chillum to answer a question which he made very clear wasn't going to answer. You threatened him with various things (don't remember the details, something like RfCs or ANI reports). I wonder in what state of mind you were when you did all that. It's a good thing you are not an admin, because you would lack capacity to be effective as one, and your inappropriate attacks verify that.

I know that you don't like being criticised and tend to accuse people of using personal attacks etc. To make absolutely sure I don't accidentally insult you I phrased everything in a way [89] that you just explained is OK. I hope you appreciate that. Hans Adler 19:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bullied to answer a question? How? Furthermore, he refused to answer and people claimed he was joking. If he refuses to admit it to being a joke, then he is aiding in disruption. Hans, your understanding of policy is completely flawed and your accusations have crossed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can you take this elsewhere now, please? Or better still, nowhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, especially now that I have read OR's first and third sentence. I can't be angry at someone who has the class to deliver a self-deprecating joke in this way.

Sorry for the intrusion. Hans Adler 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Several uninvolved parties, editors and admins, have weighed on your recent month-long block of Jarucek (sp?). I find your unwillingness to correct your mistake very troubling. Despite getting feedback from several parties who have looked into the matter and found your actions to be abusive, you continue to stand by your actions and have insisted on continuing the disruption. That makes you the one who should be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see, FutPerf makes a comment at AE himself to discuss his unblock, thus effectively submitting himself to community review. Abusive, uncheck. There is no consensus that the block was wrong: most of those disputing it are already involved in the dispute and just taking up their usual sides (to be fair, those supporting are also known for siding with FutPerf). Abusive, uncheck again. Looks like yet another frivolous cry of abuse from you, CoM. Not that I'm surprised, since you do this all the time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

most of those disputing it are already involved in the dispute and just taking up their usual sides huh? ChildofMidnight was not involved in the dispute, Malik Shabazz was not involved in the dispute, DGG was not involved in the dispute etc etc. and which uninovoled admin exactly supported the block? At least get the facts straight. Loosmark (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern also neglects to mention that feedback was given at an ANI that the block was excessive and that Future Perfect refused discussion of the issue on his talk page and blanked a concerned editor's comment. Heimstern also misrepresents the clear consensus of uninvolved editors, and fails to notice that those supporting the block are mostly disputants or expressing support for a fellow admin in principle while disregarding the facts and issues involved (which is pretty frightening and abusive behavior).

There's no need for this disruption to continue. Future Perfect needs to stop the disruption his abusive actions have caused and furthered. We all make mistakes, but when they're pointed out to us repeatedly by numerous uninvolved parties, we need to fix them. Failing to do so is abusive and this has gone on for quite some time now. Please fix this mess you've created before more incivility and drama by editors like Heimstern, who would rather defend you than seek out the facts, become involved in this. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive, much? ChildofMidnight, do you have any idea what you're dealing with? No? I have spent years dealing with Wikipedia's nationalists. So has FPAS. So has Heimstern. We are all well-versed in their little ways of attacking each other; we know when a thread spills over from productive contributions into outright trolling. By and large, their vision of encyclopedia-building is very different from yours or mine. The standards applied are accordingly different. And I resent your implication that I have not bothered to review the facts - I have checked them in detail in the light of my experience in dealing with such folk. And I have found FPAS's actions to be proportionate. Moreschi (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My good Child of Midnight and Loosmark, I did read the facts. It is you who are misrepresenting them, not I. Now please let the AE thread run its course and don't impose your own will this. That is all. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: You act as though the ANI thread (I assume you mean this one had some consensus against a block. Nonsense. Perhaps we can say there was the absence of consensus due to lack of serious discussion, but your attempt to portray that as consensus against the block is utter rubbish. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The ANI thread is pretty clear, not a single one of the editors who commented said that Jacurek needs to be blocked. Even Future Perfect said some warning against all involved. Then apparently he just changes his mind out of the blue and nukes with 1 month block. Loosmark (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi I found your post highly insulting, we are not nationalists nor we are "these folks". Show some respect when you talk about fellow editors. And frankly all this talk about admins who know what they are doing, the well-versed experts etc etc is a bit void. Btw if you have checked the facts in detail maybe you can explain why wasn't the guy who called the other editor "an idiot" blocked or at least warned. Loosmark (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why no block or warning? Could be because the guy didn't call the other editor "an idiot" and no matter how many times you claim he did the truth will still be that he didn't!Varsovian (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, you must have noticed that I removed your last post in this matter here with the edit summary "unwelcome". Just in case I need to spell out in more detail what this means. It means that posts from you to my talk page in matters of other users are, and will be, exactly that: unwelcome. You are not among the users I appreciate feedback from in matters of my administrative work. Please post here only if it should concern editorial or administrative matters affecting you directly. And Loosmark, you have made your opinion known in, now, how many different forums? I really, really don't need to hear it another twenty times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware FPaS that as an administrator your talk page is an appropriate venue for discussion. Your attitude and approach are abusive and disruptive. If you aren't willing to engage in discussion and to be civil and collegial with your fellow editors then you have no business being an admin. And in response to Moreschi I would simply point out that I have most certainly experienced the frustrations of dealing with nationalist and POV pushing editors. However, Jarucek's recent comments weren't any more disruptive than those I've seen from you on ANI and elsewhere. Again, I am simply requesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise respects the consensus among uninvolved editors and admins who have made it clear that his actions have been overly aggressive and improper. It's time to set things right so we can all return to more productive pursuits in the collaborative building of an encyclopedia instead of being sidetracked with FPaS's punitive and arrogant insistence on staying a course that has been shown to be unhelpful drama mongering. It's enough already. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, you've burst in here calling FPaS "abusive", "arrogant", and other such things. All very well, and I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion, but you can't subsequently attempt to assume a moral high ground about manners, and you certainly shouldn't expect to be taken seriously as a source of neutral counsel. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore. There is no difference between an Admin talk page and a user talk page. See

WP:NOBIGDEAL

. You communicate with an editor on their talk page, whether they are an admin or not. CoM is incorrect to think there is any special expectation associated with a user talk page for an admin. The request that CoM refrain from adding comments here unless on matters directly related to CoM personally is a reasonable request; and given the circumstances a very sensible one. It's good to walk away form conflicts, and in your own talk page to request politely that another editor walks away from your page. It is permissible to remove unwanted comments from your own talk page.

ChildofMidnight, I think you should do as you have been asked here. The request is reasonable, and it is given politely and without drama. If it is not an issue directly involving yourself, then there are more appropriate venues open to you. Excuse me commenting here; I was reading the page and felt it might help to have a neutral voice to say this. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Last comment to CoM: the appropriate place to discuss the unblock review is the unblock review, on

FutPerf, my apologies for helping to perpetuate this thread; in retrospect, I probably should have just ignored it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, not at all, it's always good to have a voice of reason in between. Thanks to Duae Quartunciae too for his calm advice above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So Heimstern who supported you 100% is now the "voice of reason"? Loosmark (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, your own contributions to this topic have also long since outlived their usefulness. Please step away from the dead horse now, and if you still need to keep beating it, do it elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Future Perfect I will. I do have one last question and then I will take my leave from your talk page. I think I have already asked you on 3 or 4 occasions why have you not issued a block or at least warned user:Varsovian for de-facto calling user:Jacurek an idiot. You have so far avoided giving me a direct answer. Since Varsovian above claims that he has not called Jacurek could please me give your opinion on that? According to you has he called him an idiot or does the formulation "my assistant says you are an idiot" mean that he has not. I am asking you because I want to know what is acceptable and what not from an Administrative point of view. Thank you in advance for answering me and I wish happy editing on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[90] [91]. Then there is this other

Seems that the new sock account insist on Moscopole.Alexikoua (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the input for consensus, it is pretty clear by a strong 8 to 3 margin that the successors should be removed. I just compiled the users to make it easier to see the results so far. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 14:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Talk:Let them eat cake? If you don't feel this is an area where you can help, perhaps you can recommend some third-party editor to help resolve the disputes there. From my point of view, User:Wran is injecting OR and POV into the article and not discussing productively on Talk. He no doubt sees things differently. --macrakis (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect, I just want to thank you for this [92]. It is so nice to know there is somebody caring about me out there in the wild world of Wikipedia. Do you also read your neighbors' letters so carefully? Oh, doesn't matter, do not answer. Tymek (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello F.P.a.S., I just noticed that you have been editing my Fucking article. I want to expand the Fucking article 5x, in order to take it to DYK - I see no reason that the Fucking article couldn't appear there. Unfortunately, it does seem that Fucking facts and information are far and few between, and I don't think the Fucking article will be expanded 5x. Do you know of any Fucking sources of information which one could use to expand my Fucking article? Any information which can be used to expand the Fucking article is welcome, especially if it relates to Fucking history. --

Given the small number of Austrians involved with Fucking (less than 100) a fivefold enlargement might be hard to accomplish. Why don't you improve something more mainstream instead, such as Kissing, Petting or Wedding? Concerning the first two there is already enough information at the German Wikipedia, and they have gone through similar experiences with English-speaking tourists.[93] Hans Adler 13:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that a 5x expansion would be Fucking hard? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I would have thought expanding the Fucking article, would be f***ing hard, but here we go --

I'm chanting as we speak

14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A 5x expansion is generally considered exaggeration. A 4x expansion can be backed up with

original research. (Taivo (talk

) 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

You appear to not to know that a 5x expansion is a minimum requirement for passing a DYK nom. You comment strongly implies the article contains original research.--Caspian blue 15:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, did you notice (pun intended) that Fucking precedes the Sunda Megathrust? Accident? Or something more suggestive? (Taivo (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Those fucking shockwaves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Or something from the Kama Sutra. (Taivo (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Anyway, on a more serious note, what I was interested in was basically just the fucking etymology. One might still object that the source you used for that part is not a particularly reliable source for fucking issues like that. We'd need a linguistic resource on Austrian place name etymologies, and historical sources for the later attestations. Unfortunately I don't really know if there's any readily available work that would have this kind of info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd think that in one of Duden's volumes there'd be Austrian placenames and a Fucking etymology. I've looked in Kluge for a fucking etymology and found relevant information in the entry for ficken, but a fucking etymology in Kluge doesn't mean that it can be inserted in an article on Fucking, Austria. Fucking and fucking aren't necessarily the same thing. (Taivo (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

Posting in a Fucking good thread. Sorry, I had to! Meowy 15:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember the last time Fucking made me laugh so hard. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that ChrisO actually found a dead serious academic source on this, are you? "Die Siedlungsnamen des Innviertels als lauthistorische Quellen" [94]. The guy is a Fucking Genius. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Barnstar of Excellence in Fucking" is in order? (seriously, nicely done, though). Kafka Liz (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Moin FPaS,

Wenn auch Wikipedia-Artikel nie richtig vollendet sind, ist die Information über altgriechische Dialekte hier in der englischen Wikipedia ziemlich befriedigend: ich kann hier jedenfalls das meiste was ich wissen will, finden. Es gibt aber eine wichtige Ausnahme: im Artikel über das Arkadozyprischen fehlt ein Abschnitt über die Hauptmerkmale dieses Dialektes. Das hat einen anderen deutlich auch gestört: jemand hat eine "this section requires expansion"-Vorlage in den Artikel geklebt. Vielleicht hast du die Kenntnisse, das zu erganzen? Steinbach (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Bitte vergib mir mein Deutsch, mein Englisch ist eben auch nicht besser

(For third party readers: I ask FPaS whether he can write a paragraph about the main traits of Arcadocypriot Greek)

Hmm, I'm afraid I must disappoint you. I haven't got anything suitable here now, and lack the time to do deeper research on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a little problem with some extremists users that edits (with non neutral informations) voices about religion in Albania. In Albania, accordin to http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/country/?CountryID=103 http://albania.generalanswers.org/ http://www.consolatoalbanesemilano.org/lalbania_oggi.html

there is an equal number between muslims and christiansm, and accroding to the USA: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71364.htm 60-75% of Albanians do not practice any religion. Some users, supporting their propaganda, deleted this data from Religion in Albania and writed only : Today Muslims are 79.9% of population. And in Demography of Albania, they put in the end, without other information, only that 79.9% are muslims, and not talking about other religions. That happens in all pages, but before there was neutral statistics.

I see it like a provocation and propaganda, because, it's not possible to have 100% of albanian population religious. I please you that, like an admin, have a look in it. And, finaly, in the voice Albanians, i put religions Islam, catholic, orthodox, protestants, bektashis, italo-albanian church, and someone deletes it and puts only Majority Muslim with Christian minorities. Please, correct them and keep wikipedia neutral. Thanks!--Albopedian (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the input. I think "advise" would have been better than "strongly caution", I have been trying to keep the peace over there for months (alone). My comment "may be blocked" on the editors talk page, was not meant to imply that I would impose it. I also recall using the expression, "seeking advice with regard to blocking" (or something like that) earlier. I feel that your strong caution has made my position in trying to keep the peace untenable. Would you care to rephrase your comment? Best wishes, Graham.

Okay, point taken about the wording re. "caution" and "advise" (I've changed that now), and sorry for making it sound too blunt there. But then, I did understand your postings as implying you were planning to take such action yourself, and on at least one occasion you explicitly said "I am seriously considering restoring my colleague's block on your editing" [95], which didn't seem to leave much room for other readings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten about that, sorry. I have been having a difficult time over there. Thanks for the change of word, it makes a big difference. Graham.

^Talk

10:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Noble Sir, you have recently posted this HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC) on my talkpage. I do not believe that is factually correct. I am aware that when most administrators act, they enable an avenue for appeal. You did not give me any. What is my avenue for appeal? And am I to correctly understand that this is logged under WP:DIGWUREN, a case I neither participated it, (I joined Wikipedia in August/September of 2008 and the case ended on 21st October, 2007), nor heard of until you placed it on my talkpage?

Earlier you said something about Permanent edit-warring on 22nd September, 2009. However there was constant vandalism, as unsourced information was placed into the article, and then removed, but no edit war. Can you please explain what you meant by that? You will find the necessary discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

So to sum it up: what is my avenue of appeal? Why the choice of WP:DIGWUREN that I have no relationship to? Where, on, or right before September 22nd, was there actual edit-warring, not removal of unsourced vandalism? Why the two month ban for a single post on the discussion page? And how do I own the article? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At

And I am appealing once again, as per Rlverse's advice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#.7B.7B.7BFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise.7D.7D.7D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps you should refactor that so as to clarify it's an appeal about your own sanction, not a request for sanctions against myself. About format, check the section in the latest archive Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Jacurek block review, where we were discussing Jacurek's appeal. It doesn't need to follow the template for sanction requests. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A fellow Wikipedian fixed the formatting. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! About the non-free images i've uploaded, I'll try to find out if there is any way to keep some of them in wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Seems I have to check the related wiki policy more carefully. ThanksAlexikoua (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent

Hello FPS. I have translated your map (and I added more items) but when I uploaded I got three black squares on it. Can you see what is wrong with the map and tell me where is the mistake? Thanks in advance and if you see it please tell me where is the mistake since I want to translate more maps. Regards.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there are no black squares if you click on it and see it in a lager resolution. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the notice (and thanks for the good job of translating the map!) I have an idea what it might be, probably some <text> elements in the SVG code that went astray during Inkscape editing. I'll see if I can locate them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning, I have made it in another font, Macedonian True Type Skola Sans font, since the cursive letters in the other fonts are not same as the Macedonian ones (the are Russian and the Macedonian ones are just very different) but I have changed the font into Arial thinking that the font might be a problem. If the font is not a problem, I would like to use the Macedonian one since the letters are Macedonian, we do not use the Russian cursive letters. Thanks for the help and I will start translating the region Macedonia if I do not bump on some other technical problems :) .--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I caught those black rectangles – it's an issue with Inkscape that I've encountered before. About fonts, the problem is that in order to be rendered properly, the proper fonts need to be installed on Wikimedia's servers, and as far as I know not even Arial is (probably because they don't like non-free Microsoft fonts). Here's a list of what they support: meta:SVG fonts. I think the recommended equivalent to Arial is DejaVu Sans Condensed. If you use anything not on that list, Mediawiki will automatically substitute something else, which may end up looking differently from what you wanted. I don't know if any of the supported fonts has the Macedonian glyphs though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will check which fonts are available. I am starting with the translation of the other map, and if I get another black irritable squares, I will ask you to check again since I am not too much familiar with Inkscape's details :) Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Just two hints: the black rectangles seem to happen when one makes some inadvertent drag-and-draw movement with the mouse while trying to create a text entry; Inkscape then sometimes appears to take that as a command to create a "flow-text" structure. But I've never been able to work out what exactly it is that triggers this. Second: in Inkscape, I recommend working with the "layers" feature: try and create an extra named layer for your Macedonian legends (use the "layer" menu item to create one, and the layer dropdown box in the status bar to switch from one to the other); that way you keep everything neatly together, and you minimize the risk of inadvertently changing other elements while working on the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have configured the layers somehow and I have my own configuration pattern while working. Also I regularly make copies so I don't lose my work (yesterday I lost my translation and I had to do it again). At the beginning, each text that I had edited appeared in black or blue square but I clicked on the button "unflow text" and it seamed OK, except for these three ones. I will be more careful this time while changing the text. Reg..--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello FPS again. I am glad that I have finished translating the map successfully and you can see it and I hope you will like it. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For now I have only translated it, I haven't added new items but I will add them soon.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hallo! Just checked in Cham Albanians a recent revert [[96]], it seems to be partly sourced. According to Ktistakis [[97]], apart from an unreliable, according to him, fascist Italian census, he does never mention the term 'Orth. Cham Albanian' or something similar (Orthodox Albanian speaking etc.). On the other hand he mentions the status of the Muslim Chams as religious minority.Alexikoua (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in a good cause. Please compare this with this and this. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject is notable as per the number of citations in Google book for instance. http://books.google.com/books?q=anti-hellenism&lr=&hl=el&sa=N&start=180 --Anothroskon (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. It's not a unified phenomenon. There are hundreds of different ways somebody may be, or may be perceived to be, "against" something Greek; these phenomena have nothing in common but the ad-hoc term that can be coined for each.

WP:DRV. Fut.Perf. ☼

19:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of other anti-xism articles. I don't see why Antihellenism is different. Particularly since it is a very consice concept with tons of mentions. --Anothroskon (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact antihellenism is very succinct. Some Jews, Christians and some Muslims were against Greek culture and religion and there are many instances where Jewish, Christian or Roman polemics against Hellenism were described as antihellenism.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the other "anti-X'ism" articles are just as bad, or worse. Just because we didn't manage to eradicate all the dreck doesn't mean we should start adding to it again. But I notice you haven't responded to the point I raised. Why, may I ask? No, you see, it's exactly not "a very concise concept": it's a bunch of a few dozen different concepts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I answered your point. There are many documented instances, in academic literature, of behaviour and chiefly writtings, labelled as antihellenism. The link I provided above should be ample evidence of that. Go through it first and then reply.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to my work as dreck. Especially since you attacked it without having seen if first.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You didn't even get my point. Yes, there are many documented instances where people call something "anti-hellenic". But is there academic literature discussing the idea that all those "somethings" are in fact one and the same thing? No, of course there aren't. Once you try to treat those different things as a single unified topic of a single article, you are deep into OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting would imply the creation of separate articles for Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Roman etc antihellenism. I am writting this since Christian antihellenism is infact discussed as a unified concept. See for example Plato and Theodoret--Anothroskon (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The purely cultural phenomenon of "anti-hellenism" as a religious-cultural stance in antiquity might be something that could be written about. Please understand that these anti-X'ism articles are a recurring nightmare and a bit of a sore spot for me, after I've fought hard and long to get rid of at least some of the worst ones (of which the old Anti-Hellenism article was one). Write about whatever your like, as long as you don't open it up to that odious nationalist game of petulant ethnic masochism and self-pity ("look, everybody hates us, everybody discriminates against us, everybody is anti-us!") Just look at Anti-Iranian sentiment and a few others to see what to avoid. Unfortunately, once an article under such a title has been recreated, it will attract editing in that vein like light attracts moths. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been named as an involved party in a request for mediation WP:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire for your involvement in the article Byzantine Empire. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 23:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So in your view, an anon who knows what a template is (and edited a template [98]), knows what vandalism is, knows a vandalism template, knows how to post on a talk page, is so familiar with protection policy, etc. is unlikely to have other issues with it? It also posted to Jimbo Wales. Why then, does it not know how to edit on the talk page if its edit was in good faith? Don't anons tend to make a comment on the talk page when an article is protected, and request protection to be lifted accordingly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you are taking this to my talk page. Anyway, all I'm saying is that up to and including this edit, nothing in the IP's activity showed signs of disruption. This had the appearance of a legitimate, constructive IP editor with some legitimate prior experience with Wikipedia. Dab made a mistake in using uncommented rollback on his edit here (implicitly treating it as vandalism or something close to it), and the IP made essentially the same mistake, of treating Dab's edit as vandalism in return. His subsequent behaviour – running straight to ANI complaining rather than calmly discussing on talk – wasn't good, but I could still see that as the reaction of somebody who was in principle a good-faith contributor but who was just momentarily very angry at being treated like a vandal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree with you then. But I didn't say anything about a calm discussion on the talk; I meant any discussion on the talk (including angry and why he felt he was right or something that a good faith anon may typically post) - there was none. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, socking is becoming more complex and sophisticated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a view which you may be interested in reading:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#View_by_John_Vandenberg:_bloc_voting_and_defamation

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name of the city to the Polish name, even if that is inside quotation I don't understand what's so bad about it? Anyway if that's not allowed at worst I made a completely good faith error, your over-reaction puzzles me. As for the other diffs: on the Katyn article I have reverted an edit which litery changes the meaning of the text on a FA article no less. I have also already explained in the past why I find Skapperod's Pomeranian history template highly problematic and he keeps sticking it to Polish articles where such a temple is off-topic, there is also a third opinion request open on the matter and we will see what the advise will be on that. To be honest it appears to me that you have an objectivity problem when dealing with Polish editors (accusing Radeksz of falsifying sources, nuking Jacurek with a long block, claiming that Varsovian's "my assistent says you are an idiot" is not an insult, saying that Varsovian's original research version of the Parade article is better etc.) I think it would be best if you stop using admin tools on Polish editors. If you really think my behavior is problematic in any way you can bring it to the attention of another admin or even better open an ANI thread on me. I'd also politely ask you stop posting such long threats on my talk page, I am sure you mean good but it is honestly a bit unsettling and in my opinion over-reaction. Thank you and have a nice day. Loosmark (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

re: I can't believe you are making so much drama over a "Dirschau Tczew" to "Tczew Dirschau" change going as far as saying its a very serious sign of a fundamentally uncooperative attitude to editing. Have you even considered that I might have missread your edit or missunderstood it? Asuming good faith was still a wikipedia policy last I checked instead you immediately "jumped" on me. I make 100s edits every week, good faith errors are bound to happen as I am not a machine. Loosmark (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes should not be changed, I agree with FPS here. But I totally fail to see what's disruptive in undoing vandalism here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism. At that point, it was known to everybody that there were objections against the presence of that map raised by established contributors, and people had been revert-warring about it. I'm not saying that the removal was justified, but it wasn't vandalism, and "Undid removal by the usual anonim IP from Germany" is not a constructive edit summary in such a situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you paint my edit summary as not constructive but fail to comment on Matthead's clearly provocative No such thing as a Polish majority - only on Polish fantasy drawings edit summary. Loosmark (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning this here, I cannot really comprehend how anyone can have a problem with this edit. Dear user Future Perfect at Sunrise, any uninvolved and unbiased administrator should praise Loosmark for his lone fight against anonymous vandalism, not admonish him. So please, at least try to pretend that you are unbiased here. Tymek (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the team is at it again, is it? You guys should have learned by now that through this kind of concerted admin-hounding you are helping neither yourselves nor the persons you are defending. Please find something else to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be added

I find the meaning of that log section contradictory: is it for logging warnings as the title says, or is it for logging actual "editing restrictions" as the description says? The arbitration decision itself doesn't mention logging of warnings, so I've generally gone with the practice I'm accustomed to from other discretionary sanctions areas (especially

WP:ARBMAC) and not logged them. Fut.Perf. ☼

06:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting a clear violation of

WT:WTA, even given as an example at that page: [99] "so-called" a a word to avoid in Wikipedia according the rules and Loosemark consistently labelled Soviet experts as "so-called experts" in blatant violation of the policy.--Dojarca (talk

) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have a reason to believe that Djougha (talk · contribs) is another sock of Hetoum. I asked for CU here: [100]. Regards, Grandmaster 06:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see there has been a row in Category:Museums in Northern Cyprus about its naming. My concern comes from another museum categorization issue. After the row, on 30 May 2009 Kyrenia Castle has been categorized as Category:Museums in Cyprus. Should it to be moved to Northern, or should the Kyrenia Ship article be moved to Museums in Cyprus and this category nominated for deletion? Note that I wouldn't like to start any conflicts. BTW, I have commented in Talk:Kyrenia ship before I noticed the history. Hoverfish Talk 06:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'd say, as long as the Northern Cyprus cat exists, both Kyrenia museum pages should be in it (and I've in fact made that edit now). I have no particular opinion about merging the categories, but I would say if you want to go for that, it might be better to do it via

WP:CFD rather than just orphaning and speedying. You might also consider the possible compromise of keeping the northern Cyprus cats, but marking them as a subcat of the corresponding "Cyprus" ones. Don't know if that would match general practice with other Cyprus cats though, would be worth checking. Fut.Perf. ☼

07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, how is this [101] so much worse than this [102]???????????????? Look, I'm not a crazy guy, nor am I any kind of a "nationalist" and hell, I've even been accidentally banned (for a day) for reverting *real* Polish nationalists. But you seem to have found it necessary to go after Loosmark while ignoring the user Matthead who has a history of ultra-nationalist editing stretching back at least four years.

If you're gonna play the "uninvolved admin" part, play it right. Be fair.

Your input is very much appreciated it and I would love to discuss things and issues, in a civil manner, with a German editor who doesn't try to push the

But for the past few weeks you've pretty much only been going after Polish editors full scale, ignoring all kinds of incivility by folks like Matthead and issuing all kinds of bans and warnings for simple mistakes to Polish editors. After awhile I start thinking, hmm, maybe

I really really really want to assume good faith here. I sent you an email or two to that effect already. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I'm still forcing myself to AGF here because I understand you're friends with Moreschi and ... since I respect him a lot ... well in my book that's pretty much all you got going for you right now.

Please be fair and impartial if you pretend to be. If you're not, then please don't bother with the hypocrisy. Too much of that already going around Wikipedia.

I am, frankly, getting tired of this constant pestering from you and your friends (just like I'm getting tired of the pestering from HistoricWarrior007 and his friends, who keep carping at me from the other side). Look at my blocking log and the Digwuren log page to see who I've been sanctioning and on what sides of the trenches. Other than that, the same answer applies to you here that I gave to Tymek a few sections above.

I am only going to respond to one point, because it doesn't concern myself but another editor: No, User:Varsovian is most certainly not a sock. I felt suspicious about him myself at first, as you may remember, so up to a point I couldn't blame you for doing the same, but please now stop beating the dead horse. As I said several weeks ago, I now know with near-absolute 100% certainty that he is who he said he was. Varsovian gave some concrete information about who he is (which I'm not going to repeat here, because such things, even if voluntarily disclosed, shouldn't be bandied about unnecessarily); this identity, as well as the correspondence between his real-name persona elsewhere and his editing profile here, can very easily be verified. (And of course, a 10-day break in editing is hardly evidence of previous socking, is it?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Varsovian gave some concrete information about who he is Like where? If you refer to his claim on the Victory Parade article that he wrote some book about Warsaw, everybody can make such claims. It proves nothing at all. When he arrived on wikipedia he immediately knew of existence of Scurinae, an admin known for always presenting evidence against Polish editors. There is no way in hell a new user would have known about him. Also the moment you blocked Jacurek the user who was the prime suspect of operating the Varsovian account made this highly provocative edit on the wikiproject Poland: [103]. Seems that 1+1 is 2 everywhere apart from on wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough. You've been bandying these claims about for long enough. Now, there is not only no evidence against the guy, there's not only the fact that he was repeatedly checkusered and found clean, I am telling you now, again, that I know he is what he says he is, and I know he is most certainly not Matthead. In fact, I know the real-life names and locations of both. I could give you some pointers about how to find and verify these things – it's no privileged information, it's all out there on the web on the basis of voluntarily disclosed information. But, you know what? I'm not going to. These people don't deserve having their names dragged around here, even if they provided the basic info themselves. So, you'll just have to take my word for it. Or go and find the facts for yourself. I don't care if you believe me or not, but I'm telling you both now: raise this sock claim once more and you're blocked for harassment. Did I express myself clearly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that your views on this matter are not objective (and one of the reasons is what happened on Varsovian's talk page when you suspected them, sorry I think it might have affected you). I therefore wish if it's possible that another admin checks what you say about their identity. I suggest user:Sandstein, he's very professional and totally impartial, but any other admin is fine too. I might be very wrong but there is no reason for you not to asume good faith from my part. I also urge you to re-think your behavior towards me, the threats are not helpful for a good faithed discussion at all. Besides currently we are involved parties in an ANI case I have opened on you and as such blocking threats are a bit ugly. To avoid any further drama I will not post again on this talk page and I request you don't post on mine either. Loosmark (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, back off. Accusing FPAS of lying, when there is no one who plays the game with a straighter bat, is going way, way too far. Get over the paranoia, please, you're only digging a bigger hole in the sand for yourself. Moreschi (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not accused FP of lying, I am just saying he might not be objective even if he's in total good faith, ok? This is the second time you accuse me of something I have not done and I am starting to get enough of it. I am still waiting you either provide evidence that I insult and claim that every admin who wants to use tools on me is involved, as you have claimed on the ANI page, or offer an appology for that. Don't think that I will forget about it because I won't. Loosmark (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FPAS stated unequivocally that Varsovian verified his identity beyond all question. For you to suggest someone else to check this is, by implication, to accuse FPAS of lying in order to cover up Varsovian's lack of good faith in contributing. Moreschi (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what? Your implication is just an embarrassing nonsense. I have stated above and I state again that I think FP is acting in good faith therefore there can be no doubt that I am NOT thinking FP is lying. Loosmark (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he is most certainly not Matthead, as anyone who's been around these parts would know. Dear Matthead has many faults, like recurrent incivility and propensity for making personal attacks but I really doubt he's ever used socks. In fact it's his very inability to control his temper that disqualifies him in this case - Varsovian on the other hand was one cool character. Wrong person(s). Still probably a sock.

The warning above goes to you too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I take a break for a few days and when I come back the usual suspects are up to their usual tricks (lying, throwing around accusations, complaining, harassing reporting, dragging me into any problem they have), very much reminds me of why I took a break in the first place and makes me seriously question whether I want to be involved in a project which tolerates such behaviour.Varsovian (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reported you on ANI [104]. Loosmark (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Fut. Perf., Thank you very much for your posts regarding the images I uploaded. First, I would like to mention I am sorry that I am very busy in real life lately, hence my reply only today, and I cannot promise to do more for a couple weeks. Second, indeed you have noticed very well that the copyright rationale for the pictures I uploaded is poorly specified. One reason for that is I did not understand at the time the copyright issues in WP, and btw in meantime they have changed. I would appreciate if you could help me provide correct copyright tags for the pictures I have. You correctly noted: "Then you had a number of uploads of (probably) self-taken photographs of posters and other items on public display; in these cases the displayed item itself may be copyrighted, so you may not be able to release a photo of it into the public domain either.". Some (not all) of my pictures are photographs taken by me personally from older photos or posters (typically older than 60 years). I received explicit permission to take those photos from the people holding the originals, and do with them whatever I wish (even publish or sell), with one condition: use a caption to say correctly what is on the photo. Could you, please, help me to determine what is the correct copyright rationale I should add to those pictures. (useful links: http://www.legi-internet.ro/index.php?id=66&L=2 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-RO-exempt) Thirdly, I want to mention that most of the pictures I have taken currently only link to my userpage. I am sorry, but I have to go very-very soon (1 minute), so i promise i will come back to you. Thank you very much for everything, Dc76\^talk 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I cut short my note above (real life reasons). I'll cut short to the point. As far as I understood, according to the Romanian copyright law, images, paintings and monuments that are available to the public are not copyrighted anymore, hence can be reproduced for example in photos. For example, I can make a photocopy of a 19th century painting in a museum, and it's ok for me to use that photo as I wish. Moreover, the copyright law can protect my photocopy (for example, I can put it on my webpage and put a note underneath "you can look at it, but cannot copy it, unless you pay me this much", which means you can not copy the photo I made, but you are absolutely free to go to the museum and make a photo yourself, then release it to the entire public, and then nobody would be interested in my copy. This is because the original has been made available to the public.) There are certain issues, nevertheless. For example, if the painting in the museum reads "Foo by da Vinci", I must add that mention in any photocopy I make, and I can not alter it to "Moo by Michelangelo". In case of monuments, I also have to mention where the original is located. And in all cases I must mention how I acquired the photocopy (for example "I made it with my camera" is ok, but "I copied it from John's webpage" is not ok, because John can retain some right to his copy). This has to be explained correctly in some template to be created, I believe. And then one is left with the important issue of arguing that the original image, painting or monument is available to the public. A 19th century old painting in a public museum is. But a photo taken by John and put on his website is not necessarily so. I must ask John if that picture is taken (or owned) by him, and if so, can I reproduce it. Dc76\^talk 00:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, how can i send u a message. Some filter does not allow me write on your page.--Vanakaris (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now it works! So ... I would like to contact user:LukasPietsch to ask him if he has some written source or link about the article he wrote about Ephraim of Nea Makri. Some source would help me defend the translation on greek wiki. I dont have much hope because i see LukasPietsch hasnt contribute for some years now. I just saw your protecting his page recently and since u are an administrator here maybe u have some clue. Anyway thanks for your time. Regards.--Vanakaris (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thnx! I was like "what newspaper refs he's talking about?". I didnt know about the recent scandal involving Παντελεήμονα ex Attica bishop's activities during 1996-1997! I was just trying to separate the "veneration" staff from the "historical facts" staff for this supposed saint I accidentally fell onto. The greek article didnt mention anything about the scandal and was written in a style taking the historical narrative as certainly accurate. Now it makes sense.--Vanakaris (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit[105], which, to me, appears to be nothing but an attempt to label this person as a racist. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "ideologue of Turkish racism" caption seems wise - but if the rest of the material you reverted was an accurate translation of statements by Atsız then that could be legitimate content. Meowy 03:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Unless there are sources describing him as such we should let the facts speak for themselves.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I dropped the contributing editor a note here [106], in the hopes that we can find some English language sources (ideally) that clarify the situation. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the following from a book that appeared recently with SUNY Press: "A third group [of pan-Turkists during WW2] was led by Nihal Atsız, who favored a Hitler style haircut and mustache, and advocated Nazi racist doctrines." [107] Hans Adler 14:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Columbia University press Apparently his trial was called the Racism-Turanism trial.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this was a high-profile political trial. In Turkey. In 1945. Therefore I think it's much better to rely on what modern historians say explicitly about him than on the main theme or even the verdict of such a trial. I am sure we can find something better in the sources. By the way, currently parts of the article read like a hagiography: "Nihâl Atsiz is remembered by his grand daughter as a kind and gentle person with children, his free time he would always dedicate reading and educating his grand children." This clearly needs some cleaning up. Hans Adler 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you, for highlighting the problem but also for digging up those sources. So, it does seem there's probably some basis for having "racism" covered under that term in the article after all, do we agree on that? But Meowy's suggestion of removing the label from the image caption might still be a good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and perhaps it would be better to hold further discussion on the article talk page. Anybody volunteer to copy the thread over there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've placed his unblock on hold for the moment. I'm having trouble locating documentation of an editing restriction placed on him by ArbCom, I didn't see it at

Thanks for your inquiry. This ban was imposed by myself in an act of administrative IAR (i.e. as an alternative to a longish block for disruptive editing) in January [108], on the basis that Korean–Japanese disputes have been inofficially under a state of quasi-discretionary sanction rules similar to the official arbcom-instated ones in other nationalist disputes – see also the special status imposed inofficially on the Liancourt Rocks article, one of the main hotspots. There was a review of it at ANI in February (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Topic ban), and again on AN in June (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194#application), in both cases with the result of Bukubku accepting the ban remaining in force; and once more in October by application to arbitrator Rlevse (User talk:Rlevse/Archive 16#application), who refused to lift it and in fact widened it instead [109]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly vouch for what FPAS is saying and Bukubku's problematic behavior over a long time frame. I support the block. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That was more than enough evidence to convince me, I've declined the unblock.

talk

) 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a RfC on the recent restrictions you have issued to me. Loosmark (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have moved the whole thing to AE. Loosmark (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

BTW not that counts for anything, and having read enough books (but possibly less than you), I trust that WP despite human nature is the biggest single step of the humanity after Gutenberg in its field. --Factuarius (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What would be the best way to deal with this?--Anothroskon (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ignore it? its ancient by internet terms and the editor concerned is barely active. If they continue let an admin know - but not weeks after the event ;-)
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It just doesn't seem to be getting through to that person.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fut. Perf. I misread what he says immediately after he mentions it, that "the provenance is not certain", but this does not refer to this finding. Regards Antipastor (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no problem then. Thanks for clarifying this. I had been wondering what you meant there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Do you have the full txt of O'Neil? Can you provide a link? As for the Milan Papyrus it's simple: is from a Macedonian writer from Pella and is in Doric, unless they also learned a second "foreign language" to write (adding to the Attic) he was writing in his native language. BTW are you absolutely sure about Jefferey's ref? Although is not my cap of tea, I understand that Jefferey's book is classic; I find it weird for O'Neil to make such a mistake, since this is the heart of his hypothesis and the Jefferey's book well known. --Factuarius (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref for Poseidippus of Pella writing in Doric plz, and ref for the significance of such a fact for XMK (or was that just your speculation)? The texts quoted here seem to be all in standard Attic. – I have the O'Neil paper, but it's not freely online. I haven't directly checked Jefferey yet. As for the inconsistency in O'Neil, I find it a bit surprising too, but you quoted it all yourself: O'Neil speaks of "the absence of any mention of the early form for epsilon used in Megarian inscriptions", and by that he can hardly mean anything other than precisely the archaic epsilon shape shown in the image you uploaded, which appears to be Jefferey's hand-drawn copy of the inscription. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Never used the term significance for the Poseidippus papyrus although I do believe it's obvious so I am not obliged to produce a ref. About its Doric dialect there is (at least) one study that contradicts your opinion (M. Di Marco, B. M. Palumbo, E. Lelli, Posidippo e gli altri. Il poeta, il genere, il contesto culturale e letterario. Atti dell'incontro di studio, Roma 14-15 maggio 2004 Pisa/Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2005.ISBN 88-8147-402-6) which is unfortunately in Italian (but not surprising since they have them). I don't know Italian, but I found this [110] saying among others "The second half of the paper (the above) examines the Doric dialect forms in hippika, the section of the papyrus in which they occur most often", have a look. About Jefferey I believe a direct check is necessary before the finalization of the article and I trust you will do it. As for the O'Neil's quotation apart of the paper's image are you sure about which one was the early form of the epsilon? If yes, then we don't have a case. --Factuarius (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You claimed, repeatedly: "a unique form of West Greek was spoken by lay people in

cobbled this together on the basis of your own imagination. Don't do that again. And the "Doric elements" discussed by Bettarini are just that: isolated elements in an otherwise solidly Attic context [112]. Sens, in the review you cited, suggests these are "a stylized form of dialectal realism" – i.e. a consciously chosen foreign stylistic element. I don't know how Bettarini explains them – if anybody has claimed they are a sign of the writer's native dialect, let me know. Oh, and of course the whole thing is meaningful only if indeed these should be "a unique form of West Greek" specific to Macedonia, rather than just common Doric Koine elements. Fut.Perf. ☼

06:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

image problem, needs to be deleted

Hi. User Ceha has uploaded this map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zepce_nova.JPG . It happens that many maps that he has uploaded in the past had copyright problems. This map is one of those. The publisher of the map is cro-stat, and the fact is that Ceha had simply cropped the image to remove other information that was on there. I have obtained the original file, which can be seen here - http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/LAzWikiDude/epe_resize.jpg . Please help in removing this image from wikipedia. Thanks in advance, (LAz17 (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)).

Request for mediation not accepted

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Byzantine Empire . For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Byzantine Greeks

Since you took an interest in the article I was wondering if you could take a look at the sections in Culture and Perceptions and see if you can spot any other errors I might have missed. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Phiale of Megara

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Mifter (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Small problem with a map

Hey FP. I have uploaded several svg maps on Commons, but the last one that I have uploaded seems to have a problem. In other words, again, there are two small black rectangles. Here you can see it and if you can solve the problem please tell me how you are fixing it so I can do it by myself in future. Cheers.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember of last time I did this, the problem occurs with an XML element called "<flowRoot>" (which apparently gets inserted when Inkscape thinks you want to create a set of text areas "flowing" into each other.) You need to manually edit the XML source text to remove those. In Inkscape, go to the menu item "Edit -> XML Editor", then locate the layer or group where all your text entries are, expand its contents and look for any "flowRoot" elements. They will contain no actual text, but a "<rect>" element (those are the ones that end up displayed in black). Delete the whole flowRoot element. You can also do the same in a plaintext editor, just open the SVG file as a simple text file and search for those elements. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will try this manual method so maybe I will fix it. Salute--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It helped me a lot. I have corrected two maps so far, this, this and this. It was easy solving the problem anyway, I needed only to ask :) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

about your edit

about [113], it is Cyrus and Babylon. FYI, there was no bible at the time. Anyway, there is a part called "Nur Al-Din Kianoori and Pourpirar" that you deleted it. Pourpirar was the leader of Iran's communist party and his memoir is authentic, although I don't have the book to verify the quotation used in the article.

Pejman47 (talk

) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to check every difference between the two versions, but it was clear that the longer version contained some heavily problematic BLP stuff. The long quote from Kanoori is also problematic in terms of copyright. If you have factual corrections to propose, like the correct translation of the title of that website, I'd ask you to make a note on the article talkpage and we'll take care of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

request/idea

You are going to remove File:Map of Banovina of Croatia.jpg soon. I think I have a possible solution. User Panonian has in the past created many great maps. Could you ask him to help out? Here, [114] that is his talk page where I asked. If you ask too, we could achieve much in terms of ending the problematic discussion with Ceha on that page. Here are some past maps that he has created, which demonstrate that he can do this.

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vojvodina_politics_map.png
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Danube_banovina.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vrbaska_banovina.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vardar003.png
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sandzak_region_map.png

As you see, he has created maps for some other Yugoslavia Banovinas in the past. I am sure that he would be willing to make another one for the Croat Banovina, but it would help if you ask him. (LAz17 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

Having a new self-made map of the whole Banovina to replace the old non-free one would of course be very useful. If Panonian should be unavailable for some reason, there's also a place somewhere at Commons where you can request help from expert map makers. (You will notice the technical level of mapmaking savviness in some parts of the wiki has risen a lot during the last one or two years – there are now some people who can make much more professional-looking maps. I've tried a few myself, but I'm afraid I won't have time soon.) – But in any case, before we ask help from a mapmaker, we would still have to agree about what factual sources to base it on, wouldn't we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you also ask Panonian? You have higher status here, and so if you ask him he would probably be more willing than if I do - your voice carries more weight. As for the source, the image that is up for deletion is in my opinion a good enough source. Panonian has used less than that, and with that he has made these maps that I linked you. I suspect that he uses coreldraw's suite program called corel-trace. I don't know though. (LAz17 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)).

I figured out how to do it! Soon we will have a new map. :D (LAz17 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).

That's good to hear. However, I must still ask, how are you going to decide which of the conflicting maps to follow about those territorial details, since you said you assume there were changes in the boundaries but you don't know when and why? Will we end up having the same kinds of disputes about your map as we're now having about the other? BTW, if you decide to make one, if I may make a suggestion, I would strongly recommend to include a bit more info for reference than Panonian did in his: any such map should at least contain the coastline contours, modern national boundaries, major towns and major rivers, so readers have something to relate the historical boundaries to. Without that, such a map is quite uninformative to the non-expert reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I of course will not use modern day boundaries, as I can not claim such level of detail if I did. Instead I can use the boundaries from back then. The dispute is about where DV was located. I have maps that show it not in the Croat Banovina. At any rate, I do not even plan on including that town on the map as it was not a major one. I do not think that there will be a dispute regarding the borders of the croat banovina, if I use the map that should be deleted soon. (LAz17 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)).

Proto-Indo-Iranian

Greeting, Future Perfect. Would you mind taking a look at this? User:SorenShadow isn't a linguist and is inserting wild speculation in both of these articles without a shred of reference. He readily admits that it's all original research on the part of his linguistics professor (he claims to be a research assistant). His linguistics is just bad. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Administrative actions and content

I've brought this here since the action at the noticeboard already seems largely settled, but you bring up an interesting point. I can certainly see your thought on the matter, that administrative decisions should not be totally content agnostic. To some degree, they're already not—we certainly don't look at adding random profanities to an article as an edit on the same level as adding a well-sourced section, and I don't think anyone would argue that we should. On the other hand, I'm a bit leery of admins taking a hand in content disputes (at least as an admin, obviously any admin is still an editor and is welcome to participate in the discussion), or in deciding who's right or wrong in an edit war. There are a couple of reasons I can see behind that. The first one is that, well, we don't all have the same areas of expertise! I have no idea who's "right" or "wrong" in this scenario, or if there are valid rationales behind both, or what have you. The section wasn't sourced to begin with, so I don't even have the benefit of a reliable source if I were to try to untangle it. The second reason is, I think we're asking for trouble if we start using admin tools only against the side the admin believes is "wrong". In any cases like this, if it really is clearly right, it's easy enough to source it, and if that's not even enough, start an article RfC. In my experience, when one side is clearly right, consensus swings quickly in their favor, especially once those sources are cited. Of course, with most edit wars, the situation is murkier, and there really isn't a clear consensus going one way or the other. In those cases, it often takes extensive discussion to figure out how to present things, and sometimes

dispute resolution. I think that's a better outcome, though, than an admin stepping in to decide who's right and who's not. I am curious, though—how would you propose to implement your suggestion, while guarding against an admin who favors a particular side doing so with admin tools, or worse yet, a wheel war rather than an edit war being the result? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

09:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Himariote Greek Dialect

I have some concerns about this article, which I have expressed at its talkpage. Would you mind giving your opinion?--I Pakapshem (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Historian19

Could you deal with Givenchy de Paris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? Evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19, this diff to Copenhagen is obvious. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rembrandt van Rijn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making the same edits to the same articles. Could you block please? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

couple more things

This may be of interest.

• [115]
• [116]

It further confirms what I have been saying. (LAz17 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)).

Puzzled

Dear FPS, I was puzzled to see the history of File:Tran.jpg; how come one could overwrite an image uploaded by someone else?! Apcbg (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's some messy history indeed. Unfortunately there's no technical measure against such rogue uploads – the software will produce a warning to the uploader, but it's easy to override. I think your best bet is to move your image to a more elaborate descriptive title, then it will be much less likely to be accidentally hit in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. best, Apcbg (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi FPaS, just to let you know that I've mentioned you at an ANI thread, Balkans related of course, and your input of whatever kind would be welcome. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito. Thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And once again...

... you disappoint me. Seriously - there are genuine people on Wikipedia and then there are... . Through out all this I've been trying my best to assume good faith towards you, though it's always been borderline. I really really want to. Oh whatever, because I still like you I'll ascribe it to the "he who fights with monsters..." and all that. It's a good article and you know it. If you really do have objections point them out, email me, explain it and I'll be very very glad to try and work it out. You can even do it via private email.

talk

) 10:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at ShadowRangerRIT's talk page.
Message added 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Another response. Also, I need some help on the article. DIREKTOR has decided that he is the sole party allowed to edit the page, even if multiple other editors with, as far as I know, zero bias, contradict him. Technically, I doubt I'd violate 3RR to revert him (it's a different revert with a different person, and I haven't even reverted him personally once today), but the spirit of the rule is a bit more broad, and I'd prefer support from more than just Jessip on this (assuming you agree that DIREKTOR's blind reversion is unjustified). I get the impression that DIREKTOR's m.o. is to try and drag out debate until all but the partisans have left, thereby allowing him to continue owning the article in the state he desires. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re

Hey, I responded per mail. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Varieties of Modern Greek

Hi Future. Sorry for disturbing you, but there is a commited edit warrior at the article adding uncited wp:or. As a linguist, I think your intervention is needed there. I have had enough reverting this nonsense. Danke. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure if you have seen this, so here is a reminder and an update. I have started a dialogue with the IP. They claim Maniot is related to Doric, based on phonetics and mutual intelligibility with Tsakonian. (The only source provided so far is a website that I can't read with my holiday Greek.) I tried to research this, but just with free web resources I didn't get very far. See Talk:Maniots#Maniot dialect. Hans Adler 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

being talked about

I obviously don't know exactly what you are referring to, but scare quotes are used in many of the sources itself.

talk

) 10:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to your EEML mail about the Schieder Commission, which Skäpperöd pointed me to (from mid-September, I'm sure you'll easily find which one I mean; there seems to be only one), and my reaction after a first cursory comparison of your article as you first posted it, the version as it currently stands, and a few pages of the Moeller source (p.60 and thereabouts). I find your writing clearly tendentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you email me the little date stamp thingy so I know what you're talking about. One thing you should keep in mind - my writing of the article was interrupted by my little f*k up and delayed by the ensuing drama. The sections on the methodology and conclusions were left unfinished. I've expanded them further since then. Of course I don't object to anyone expending it further and in fact would welcome it - if you think there's POV in the article, correct it.

talk

) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mailed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

talk

) 10:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware I've replied to this via email. I see no intention to engage in any "tendentious editing" in the email Skapperod (you) cited. If anything, the email shows my concern with making sure that the article is NPOV by (1) noting that my first draft of the article might still have POV in it and that needs to be removed (how many editors self-check their edits for their own POV?) and (2) indicating that both the negative (Nazi past) and positive (an attempt to follow some scholarly standards) need to be included in the article.

Let me repeat. There's no stated intention to engage in "tendentious editing" in the email you cite or anything that would suggest it. There is absolutely no statement that there was a stated aim of misrepresenting facts. This is still Skapperod lying. Your initial impression was the correct one.

I would still very much appreciate you becoming involved in this article in order to make it better. I understand that this is asking a bit much - but if you're gonna back up Skapperod's slander with a "I guess I can see what you mean now" then I think I have a right to make that request. And I would very much welcome your input.

talk

) 06:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

hey

article draft removed

Let me know what you think.-- LONTECH  Talk  21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. That was a cheap copy-and-paste job from a copyrighted book – hence a copyright violation. Sorry, you can't create articles in this way. Please don't do this again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll create article regarding Automatic Database Diagnostic Monitor (ADDM) in Oracle Database-- LONTECH  Talk  23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:KPCKim.jpg

An editor has asked for a

Dreadstar ☥

03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Future, I've got a problem here. User Laz removed my map [117]. Map is for 1910, the borders of kotars are clearly seen here | map and here | census is the link to census which states which kotars(counties) where part of which district. I do not want to argue with him, but the guy is removing sourced information. Could you return the map back? --Čeha (razgovor) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page to understand why ceha's district map is ridiculous. Kotars have nothing to do with this. (LAz17 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)).

Thank you

Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries

Onward, Wikipedia! Cheers and happy editing, your comradely editor --

talk

) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Handshakes and kourabiedes all round, then :-) – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Βασικό πράγμα ο κουραμπιές. Καλή όρεξη. Kαι, όχι ευχαριστώ, κάνω δίαιτα :) Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Μπα, μη μου πεις τέτοια. Η φωτογραφία το δείχνει ξεκάθαρα: λείπει ήδη ένας, τον πήρες εσύ, το ξέρω! Είμαι σίγουρος ότι όταν έβαλα την εικονίτσα εδώ, πριν έρθεις εσύ, είχε ακόμα δέκα κουραμπιέδες. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Χα Χα. Νόμιζα που δεν κοίταζες! Μ' έπιασες στα πράσα ;) Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Καλύτερα να προσέξουμε. Αν μας ακούσει ο Νταμιέν έτσι όπως μιλάμε, θα νομίσει πως είναι μη-ελεύθεροι αυτοί οι κουραμπιέδες, και θα βαλθεί να τους σβήσει φάει όλους μαζί. Έλα ρε Νταμιέν, ελεύθεροι είναι, σ'το λέω, έναν πάρε, όχι και όλους μαζί ρε... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ας ελπίσουμε ότι δεν ξέρει Ελληνικά γιατί μπορεί να φέρει και το ρομπότ να φάει κι' αυτό και μετά θα θέλουμε χιλιάδες κουραμπιέδες. Μη μιλάς πολύ μπας και το γρουσουζέψουμε το πράγμα. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your closing of the ANI

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#User:Jack_Merridew_is_back_to_his_disruptive.2Fannoying_signature

(refactored) First of all, the signature is not only on Jack Merridew's talk page, it is on other users talk pages and on project pages. I would appreciate a correction.

As shown in the examples I stated on ANI, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#KoshVorlon.27s_signature, other editors must follow signature rules. I am confused why Jack Merridew does not.

Jack Merridew has also been warned by User:Secret to stop with his signature or he will be blocked. This warning was ignored.

I am simply commenting on Jack Merridew behavior. I would happily stop commenting on Jack Merridew if Jack Merridew would follow all of the rules which everyone else needs to follow. Everything I wrote was factually correct in that section, with no opinion beyond edit diffs. I didn't post these ANI's a variety of concerned editors have. As long as new editors open up new sections of ANI on Jack Merridew's behavior, I feel that I have a right to continue to comment.

Those who have accused me of commenting about Jack Merridew are the same editors who continue to justify Jack Merridew's continued disruption, breaking and flaunting the rules that I thought everyone must follow.

I have also alerted

User:Fram

on this discussion, two admins who have threatened Jack Merridew about being blocked, and which Jack Merridew has ignored, repeatedly.

Keep in mind that both

User:Fram

are two admins which I have traditionally opposed in the past on almost all issues.

I am sorry that you have gotten involved in this Future. I have seen you around, and you seem like a really stellar admin.

talk

) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And this is my absolute final warning to you: one more line by you about Jack, and you are blocked. (BTW, your posting above just came seconds before I was going to paste a formal notice of the warning on your own talk page.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I warned Jack Merridew about being blocked if he continued to hound A Nobody, but due to disagreement about this from involved and (more importantly) uninvolved editors, I have changed this approach to talking to his mentors when it happens again. I have threatened Jack Merridew with a troutslapping, not a block, if he continued with his massive signatures. I have not threatened him with a block for his sig, IIRC.

Fram (talk

) 09:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Fram. I note that Future Perfect at Sunrise, that you never corrected what you said, I also note your "personal attack".[118]

talk

) 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you still need it spelled out why I find you have been wiki-hounding Jack? Okay, I'll explain it one more time. I'm not even talking about your massive participation in the previous Arbcom motion page – I haven't read through those walls of text, I only know you were evidently extremely tenacious in trying to "get" him. What tipped the scales for me was the ANI thread about his signature, referred to above. So, here we had a frivolous complaint started by a not very clueful n00b, who had a history of raising unproductive ANI threads and spurious complaints and had previously been warned by their mentor to stop messing with ANI, but who nevertheless thought it a good idea to raise a stink over J.M.'s one-off use of a joke sig on his own page. That complaint was quickly dealt with. Then, when admin consensus was already established, you thought it a good idea to piggy-back on the thread and back it up with more accusations. What I find crucial about this is that the original complaint was not only spurious and trivial, it was also entirely unrelated to whatever legitimate reasons you might have for being opposed to J.M. I don't know what real or perceived grievances you have against J.M.; I suppose it's something related to his taking an aggressive anti-inclusionist stance and perhaps making himself a nuisance over those issues (in some people's perception); but whatever it is, his joke sig had nothing to do with it. So, in inserting yourself in that thread, you were clearly not pursuing some legitimate issue where you were affected by J.M.'s behavious; instead, you jumped on the bandwagon purely because it was another opportunity to get him sanctioned. That is the reason why I believe you should not be let anywhere near discussions about J.M. at this time, and I continue to stand by that judgment and intend to enforce it if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip can comment on J.M. signature even if he was not affected by it. Also commentating on an ANI thread is not wiki-hounding and I suggest you immediately withdraw this ridiculous accusation.  Dr. Loosmark  19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, I thought you might have understood by now that I am not particularly interested in your opinions on my actions with respect to other users. Your technique of grudge-bearing is helping neither them nor yourself. I recommend you stay away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My technique of grudge-bearing!? I made a good faith critic of what I perceive as a ridiculous accusation of wiki-hounding. And I will comment on whatever topic I feel to comment.  Dr. Loosmark  23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, recall what the original name of wikihounding was, "wikistalking". Wikihounding is "following another user around".

For a perfect example of wikihounding, look at the previous arbcoms, in which the arbcom unanimously found that the editor was wikihouding. The editor followed around Cool Cat from page to page, on several pages, over a period of months.

This case is completely different. I commented on two pages: in the Arbcom, and then I notice the ANI, which I have watchlisted and frequently comment on. I have not followed Jack Merridew at all.

By your absurd standard, User:Daedalus969 and who created Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Jack_Merridew.27s_disruptive_signature and anyone else who first commented in the Arbcom then commented in ANI, is a "wikihounder" You are setting a absurd precedence here: that an editor who comments in a arbcom, and then comments about the same editor on ANI, is wikihounding, and can be threatened by a admin with a block.

Future Perfect at Sunrise, you have been here long enough to know that you should not try to second guess an editors motivations.

Unfortunately this is not the first admin abuse and bad judgment I have seen, in this arbcom, an admin was calling my edits shit, and another admin has repeatedly defended personal attacks; in addition I helped desopy 3 admins.

Your baseless personal attacks are offensive and your administrative abuse is troubling.

talk

) 21:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I find second guessing your motivation unnecessary. It is usually plain enough to see. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are not helping your case. The more you wiki-lawyer here the more convinced I am that what I'm doing is very necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma sock

I have a suspicion that

talk

) 01:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The 151.57.* IPs seen here [121] are also almost certainly him. --

talk

) 01:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'ed

WP:SPI? Fut.Perf. ☼

11:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Hiberniantears already blocked him, so I don't know what to do at this point. If he is not a sock (which I doubt), he will protest. --

talk

) 21:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for the notification. Don't forget to take a kurabiye or two from above, and let's also leave a few for Shuppie. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yum, thanks! Did you make these yourself? I'll be sure to leave one or two for Sarandioti, just in case. --

talk

) 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Return of the fat slob in red

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia

, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09

}} to your friends' talk pages.

John Carter (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ The Illyrians page 236 by John Wilkes [122]
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Neagoe1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).