User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 7

; Archives
	– July 2006; – October 2006; – November 2006; – January 2007; – 12 March 2007; – 5 May 2007; ;

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Grecomans

Source the article with this conection, pleace?!?

[1] STAVROS SKRINIS Nation-State Building Process and Cultural Diversity - Greece

I propose it is well sourced!?! ... and objective.

Be happy....Jingby 15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian article

You are really pissing me off, what right do u have to change the history of a Nation, why I am the only one who get warning.Trojani 06:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MR Admin

Why dont you make efforts to read somthing about the situation in the Balkans before you try to edit my version: THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY (dr Alexandar Stipcevic University of Zagreb)Trojani 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure

I'll take a look. - Francis Tyers · 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Hello,

This post concerns the recent blocks on Transnistria, especially that of User:EvilAlex. One the talk page you said that Arbcom has been informed about all the blocks. Has this been done publicly? If yes, can you point me to the Wikipedia page where you informed Arbcom of the blocks?

Thanks, Dpotop 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

They are all listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.. By the way, please don't reintroduce plagiaristic (i.e. copyvio) elements in Marius' "sandbox" page, as you did here ([2]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve my sandbox. The best place to discuss improvements is sandbox's talk page, where I already answered to some of your concerns. I added a refference as result of your suggestions, when I will have time I will look more in details in order to eliminate any accusation of OR. You can check also Igor Smirnov article from Wikipedia, some info you labeled as OR are there (and not added by me).--MariusM 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From Trojani

I am not sure if i am supposed to wright on this page, anyhow i would like to raise concern in regards to the origin of Alexander the Great. In the article ther is no mention about his Illyrian origin, i have more than 27 ( [Alexander the Great http://alexanderthegreat.wordpress.com/]sources that suggest that his was at leat part Illyrian (mothers side). I woule like to have your opinion on the issue.Regards Trojani 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

CoI

Due to our prior unpleasant interactions, I would prefer if you would refrain from involving yourself in disputes that do not directly deal with our own interactions, namely the image dispute. It is because of these prior interactions that I feel that you cannot really be all that impartial where it concerns me. there are more than enough admins who can weigh in without you feeling the need to do so. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan

Dear FPaS, An anon user vandalized that page many times.Please take an action.Regards.Must.^T ^C 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pirin Macedonia

user:TodorBozinov and user:Gligan try to setup me with 3RR in Pirin Macedonia article. This is not fair on wikipedia. Pirin Macedonia should exist as different article not to be redirected to Blagoevgrad Province article. If there is no need for separate article then there is no need for redirection also.--Brest 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go help them. Niko Silver 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, evil. People watching my page like hawks ;-) -- Brest, I'm not sure, are you asking me for my opinion as an editor, or for my intervention as an admin? Admin-wise, if they are "setting you up" with 3RR, you should definitely avoid going into the trap, because you know what the consequences will be... -- as for the matter itself, I'll drop a few words on the talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Niko, do you also sell hats? I lost one the other day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

TRNC

Hi Fut, would appreciate your input here. Dispute over how a statement by the UN SG should be presented in the history. Greek pov wants his full statement as taken from a Republic of Cyprus report, I want it paraphrased with a counter pov. I am being accused of suppressing sources by reducing the size of the statement (I dont think a large quote should be dominating what is otherwise a concise history of the conflict), yet they dont have any trouble deleting my source entirely without question. Cheers, --A.Garnet 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors involved: Niko, Aristov, Pluto + some sock/meat puppets. Makalp has been the only one reverting to my version (with his own additions). --A.Garnet 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Sorry, but I'm not sure I can tackle Cyprus right now. With Transnistria and Macedonia all in a single evening... :-( --Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tommorow maybe? --A.Garnet 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good historians north of Florina

Wie gehts? Droped some stuff at Niko's, you may wish to look [3]. It is just the tip of the iceberg I have been collecting. ps. I thought the cyprus thing was solved-at least on the ground Politis 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

cuneiform

please see my reply. I am pretty convinced we can keep them, arguing "fair use, if not public domain". dab (𒁳) 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD

Hi, I noticed you closed out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Captain Waters/band, as delete, but have not deleted the page. Oversight? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, happy mopping. I'm out of town and on dial-up, or I'd happily help out. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek War of Independence

Go have a look there; I know you're good in finding a peaceful way to stop such a state of confusion. Crvst 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a look a at Greek War of Independence? Each one reverts the massacres of the other, a.s.o. ... ad infinitum. Crvst 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I had hoped that problem would go away without my intervention somehow... :-\ Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

problem with uncooperative new editor

This user has already broken 3RR (last stand, Battle of the Persian Gate), displayed unvicil behaviour and instigated rv-warring in his first day of editing [4]. I'm not sure what I should do. Obviously can't report him under 3RR. I've already cited all the policies, including 3RR but he's not very interested. I think he needs to hear it from someone else other than myself. Thanks. Miskin 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apostolos Margaritis' archive

But where's the archive? Crvst 14:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Talk page history

I was wondering; I've noticed that there isn't any real edit history of your Talk Page after you archive. I thought that all pages retain a complete edit history of edits. How have you removed this history? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two techniques of archiving: either you archive by cutting and pasting the contents into the archive page, in which case the edit history remains at the original page; or you archive by moving the whole original page to a new name in the archives, in which case the edit history is stored as part of the archive page. Both techniques have their pros and cons. I've been using the second technique. HTH, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks or the quick reply. While I am at it, is there any way for an admin to remove a post from an article? I am not asking for an admin to do this, but to deterimin if such is possible. Hypothetical: an admin wants to remove a particular post. Can the admin remove the article trace of it along with their history of having removed it? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a thing called selective undeletion, yes. You can delete a page and then undelete only selected edits from its history. It's sometimes done for technical reasons in article space, for instance to allow for page moves, or on talk pages in order to erase violations of privacy, serious harassment or the like. Evidence of that would still be found in the admin's log, and other admins can still see the deleted edits. In very serious cases things can be expunged completely, through Wikipedia:Oversight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still looking for Apostolos Margaritis' archive page; perhaps, you could help me find it? Crvst 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, yes, it seems something was misplaced there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha... I can't help but wonder what that could be. Crvst 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Hi! I don't know who to address to so I'm writing to you. A specific guest edits the Euroleague article every day, so many times, adding the same material and making the article a dedication to the team he supports. He is reluctant to discuss it, he just goes on vandalising the article. I don't know what to do apart from reverting it 20 times per day. Can you help with me this? I don't know..locking it for the guests or anything... Thank you! - Sthenel 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know but obviously I'm the only one these days who watch this article..thanks! Sthenel 08:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you locked the article while he had edited it. Someone told me that his contribution is not blatant POV and I should try to discuss with him, while I've said that this person doesn't want to discuss anything, he is a guest and he doesn't care. Anyway.. - Sthenel 08:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As a guest, he doesn't mind discussing anything. I tried to start a conversation in the talk page for his edits but he ignored it. He was only interested in removing from the introduction the line about the most successful team in the competition (Real Madrid) and adding a statistic record for his favourite team (Panathinaikos) which is based on an unreliable source (how can a team have an attendance record of 20,000 people, which is supposed to be based on the saled tickets, while the stadium is of 18,000 seats?). The record does exist but I asked him to find a source with the exact attendance at that game instead of using Panathinaikos site which exaggerates.. Some days ago he added the records of his team in the opening paragraph too. That's all. So, if I'm wrong again, ok... - Sthenel 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Images

Are you suggesting that if the text were to more accurately describe a situation that the picture detailed, the reasoning for maintaining the image s would become stronger? You will forgive me for not understanding you more completely here. Are you suggesting that a specific citation for each image, describing the image's place within Plot/Production/etc. would resolve a number of these issues? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Btw, nice source. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that we are getting somewhere here. A good night's sleep (and not having to deal with a brown-nosing childish clown in an unrelated matter combined with the normal difficulties of a mobile workplace - I am in disaster management) have served to help me calm down a bit. I don't think I own any page, but it was all very frustrating to have folk come in and manhandle the situation as poorly as had happened. A confluence of factors, I guess - one that we should try to move past. I will work on the text tonight and tomorrow (I will be traveling back from Kansas today, and my presence here today will be spotty), and we can work together to knock out something that can maybe serve as a good implementation of what is 'okay' in accordance to the new policy interpretation. I don't know what time zone you are in (I am in UTC-5 = US Central Standard), I will endeavor to work in tandem with you to make it work. I think it can work. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Something I am concerned about is an issue that Erik brought up about the relevance of the image to the storyline. The plot synopsis is not really a place to provide citation, and this would rather suggest that the plot section - in accordance to the new application - cannot sustain any images, whereas production would have two or three all by itself (and Depiction of Persians would have one). This seems unbalanced to me. I am wondering how an image with a brief, cited quote as a caption would hold up - ie, would the text of the article have to say it in immediate proximity to the article, or is it enough that the image is directly referenced with in the article with an (see image, above) descriptor - or would it have to be mentioned within the proximal text? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

problem

There's a serious, serious need for your participation in Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. If for some reason you can't participate then say so, but please don't ignore me. Miskin 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please help to prevent vandalism on Erich Maria Remarque page. Thaks in advance Shmuliko 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia

Hi FPaS,

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in the Greek war of independence

You already "wiki-censured" one article about the subject and you now ignoring all the vandalisms that has been going on in the main article and in the new article. At least dont claim yourself to be neutral and stop wandering around giving lessons of morality.. Btw, the main reason for the deletion of the article was its being POVfork right? Now i have rights to include well sourced documents to the new article in which Alexius try to keep imposing his nationalist point of views...--laertes d 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to take a look at the "Massacres in the Greek Revolution Article"? Laertes will simply not stop messing with the article, and the only discussion he seems willing to be having is asserting that his version is better and reverting without any sort of consensus. Apparently banning him does not accomplish anything as he just returns to his old tricks in after the ban expires. AlexiusComnenus 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius stop your childish, silly, little games nobody is buying them, it is because people dont want massacres being mentioned and thats why nobbody is doing anything about you, not that you really convince people..You keep deleting sourced material and yet accusing me of vandalism..--laertes d 10:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 00:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups infobox

Regarding the prolonged discussion about the ethnic groups infobox, I'm wondering if it would be possible to place a small note directly on 'related groups'? Something like 'It has been proposed that this section of the infobox be removed, see discussion'. Ling.Nut insists that removing 'related groups' would require gaining consensus on all ethnic group articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 06:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

user:NisarKand is back again...

Hello again Fut.Perf. I hope you are doing well. I am not though, because the banned user: NisarKand is back again spreading his POVs and racism on Wiki. His new sockpuppet is User:Birdazi, just looking at his user page will show that he is a spammer. Most of his current activities are on the Taliban article. If you could please take a look at his edits on that article and his discussions you can clearly see he is once again spreading ethno-natinalist POVs as well as making racist remarks to others. Please if you can RV all his edits, I would do that but my RV is limited. Or even better, if you can please ban him again. Thanks a ton in advance. --Behnam 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again, but after you banend that one, he made yet another sockpuppet: user:Tajirk. And as you can see, he is expressing his racist feelings towards Tajiks with his username. Worst of all, he is making very ridiculous edits once again. So please if you can once again RV his edits and also please ban this sockpuppet as well. Thanks alot, much appreciated. --Behnam 19:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After you banned that one he is now back with another, User:Babajee. I think he should keep getting banned until he gets the message that he is banned. --Behnam 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He now stopped using that one and is using this one: User:Haleemi. Also, can you please put a protection on the [[Afghanistan] article and also the Pashtun people article? Thanks. --Behnam 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He keeps making sockpuppets, he now uses user: Maria Tahoo. I think an even better idea would be to Semi protect all the articles he edits. 2 of them have already been Semi protected, which is great and thanks alot for that. But here are a few more and then he would be gone for good: Hamid Karzai and also if you could please do all the Provinces of Afghanistan. Thanks alot. --Behnam 18:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you could simply please Semi-Protect the following articles he would be gone for good.

Thanks in advance. --Behnam 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He is back again under User:USA Ali baba (he says he is from Herat but he is not, he is NisarKand from Kandahar) and attacking the article Tajiks with ridiculous vandalism. If you could block him that would be good. Thanks --Behnam 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Miskin "case"

I couldn't but notice your silence on this and this. Willing to share an opinion or... ? Duja► 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My "Sandbox"

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thank you for your observation. Unfortunately, I am now very busy in real life, and do not have time to update and finish many elementary tasks that I wanted to do on WP. I was intruiged by the content of the former article out of sheer curiousity, and wanted to read it, and see whether it might contain some useful links or info. But because the theme does not interest me much, and because I do not have time for WP even without it, I have only read the first 2-3 paragraphs, and coppied the rest, in such a way that only me can see it and can read it when I will have time. (the page does not even link to my user page - it simply links to nothing, it is temporary until i finish reading it) My whole intent was to read and understand it, and bit by bit to erase what I think is redundant. I think maybe 3-4 sentences out of 100 maybe useful in some articles, but maybe 0 - But I don't know yet, because I did not read that yet. So, could you, please, wait until I finish reading it to know what we are talking about, and be sure, I am not going to keep it more than that. I will let you know when I am done. :Dc76 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. my personal oppionion is that the user pages can contain anything, but of course "on a temporary basis", only until the material is "worked through" - and provided clear indications on that page are given that this is a working material. For example, a simple copy of an already deleted article wouldn't be fine, b/c it would have a title etc, but a partial and temorary copy of some passages, provided they will be worked on -shouln't be a problem. what do you think?

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren&diff=130541396&oldid=130535541

Buffadren = Des Grant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.243.232.122 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

talk:Transnistria

I am sorry. I made a confusion, and I appologized to the user. :Dc76 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the link. Sorry for pushing you, but I am following this article for a long time now, and I can only see what a few determined puppet masters can do in manipulating information and other users (I don't know if you were there for the nice astro-turfing attempt of last year). In the last 6 months, the situation seemed to clarify a bit, with Mauco and MarkStreet (which I saw as the main manipulators) uncovered as puppet masters (Bonaparte, on the other side, has been banned for good a long time ago). Dpotop 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The material you asked me to read and delete if not used

Hi, I have gone (not thouroughly) through the material that I coppied from a former MariusM's (now deleted or in controversy, I guess) user page. Whatever happens with MariusM's userpage is another question, and frnakly I don't have time and disire to get more involved in that.

But, I have taken the text, and read it, and whatever was not clear junk or poor English, I have slightly editted, and then put into Media in Transnistria. I hope people would read and edit it there. And especially I hope they will check all sourses (I didn't except a few). I believe that is the proper place of that material. What form, what edit, I hope others will help to determine.

There remains the last issue, that of the popular expression "Heaven of Transnistria". I have kept this, but it seems too long to me. So, I hope input from others. Best regards, :Dc76 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres in Peloponnese

Is this our blocked friend Laertes_d (talk · contribs)? Niko Silver 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So... when it is Turks that get slaughtered, nobody is supposed to talk about it, or to write about it; and there isn't a damn thing that a Turk can do to discard the marked cards that he has been dealt.--Alperkaan 10:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes he can. The first thing he should do is adhere to the rules set by the majority. FP, should we file an SSP or an RFCU? Niko Silver 10:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this wait a bit? I'm busy with the Transnistrians. I'm not sure this guy is a sock, at first sight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are naive, sir, if you really believe that your version of history is so close to the Truth that it cannot have more than a single opponent.--Alperkaan 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Niko, youre the one who ıs usıng trickery methods now are you accusing me of such thıngs? I dont have anythıng to do wıth the user Alperkaan. We're talkıng about the events virtually every sıngle historıan mentıoned about yet we can neıther open a separete topıc about ıt, nor can we include necessary materıals ınto two relevant topics..You shuld thank to the admınıstrators sınce they are allowıng you to impose your natıonalist point of vıews ın the relevant topıcs--laertes d 11:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an official warning that I take issue with the ad hominem remark "impose your natıonalist point of vıews". Please read WP:NPA. I will not tolerate such language from you in the future, and will seek action if repeated. Niko Silver 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP

Half the people in the Pentagon have the same IP address. I can assure you they are not all the same person. Buffadren 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why look for explanations when all that's really needed is a simple duck test.--Ploutarchos 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If Buffa has done something that breaches Wiki rules please state what this is. The Transnistria page is full of Romanian ducks, at least Buffa edits for both sides and opinions as half his edits are left there and half removed. The thing is the edits that show even a slight good light are removed. Buffadren 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks

There is a problem with socks on Cyprus [5]. Could you do one of those things you do that make the problem go away :) --Ploutarchos 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blank templates

Thanks for your effort to make the Transnestria Workshop more readable by commenting out the blank templates. However, it's important that editors (especially those who are new to the arbitration process) realize that there is room for them to contribute additional proposals, so I'd prefer to see the extra templates remain visible for at least awhile longer. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, do as you see fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevancies at Arvanites

Dodona and Ploutarchos continue a discussion about Greek and Albanian human rights policies at Talk:Arvanites which has nothing to do with improving the article. What are the rules about deleting irrelevancies like this from Talk pages? I suppose I'd prefer that an Admin do it.... --Macrakis 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Such debates can be removed, I've done it myself from time to time but it's not really an admin-only task. It's a wiki! :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain Waters/band/room

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Captain Waters/band/room. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Genesis | Please sell England by the pound *** | on 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Britlawyer

I'm a bit concerned by your block of Britlawyer. Checkuser apparently showed that he was on a different continent from Mauco, or so at least Jpgordon says. All of the confirmed sockpuppets of Mauco showed up in the usual way, no? Surely at least some standard of proof ought to be required to block somebody. The supposed examples of similar editing are dubious - many editors appear to be suggesting that Tiraspol Times be linked from the Transnistria page, and indeed, it's a rather obvious thing to do, as it is the main news source for Transnistria. "Legalese" arguments at Talk:List of sovereign states are hardly anything new - the list was for a long time explicitly based on the Montevideo Convention, so it's hard to see how such things can be avoided. At any rate, the case hardly seems a slam dunk, so I'm concerned that the block was, at the very least, premature. john k 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sharing your concerns. Yes, I'm aware the block is somewhat unusual, but in the Transnistria issues my supply of AGF is running a bit lower than usual. I've argued it a bit more on the Arbcom page, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence#Britlawyer blocked as abusive sock, but of course I'll be happy to have the thing reviewed and, if necessary, overturned by others. This wasn't an easy decision for me either. Anyway, I looked pretty closely at the precise temporal patterns of account creations and edits by Britlawyer, Mauco and his other known socks. I consider that data pretty damning (I can forward it to you). Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust as they say, and we can safely assume the people behind the Transnistrian astroturfing campaign (which undoubtedly exists) have means of concealing their puppetry by using geographically diverse proxies; they only get caught occasionally when they slip. Just look at how Buffadren passed through multiple checkusers seemingly clean, and then suddenly was revealed to have been on MarkStreet's IP after all. As for the content profile, say what you like, but first arguing the Montevideo convention and then the TT link, in this combination and with this degree of determination, looks more than just suspicious to me, and the style and language fits too if I'm not mistaken. Calling TT a "news source", by the way, is a bit of a euphemism; it is very decidedly a mere propaganda and disinformation instrument, and very easy to see through.

Anyway, I gave him a way out already: he said he was not a new user but had previously edited anonymously. Let him tell us a plausible story about what those previous anonymous edits were, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times is certainly a propaganda outfit, but it also contains actual news about Transnistria that probably can't be found anywhere else in English. Even if it is merely a propaganda source, it seems logical to include a link to it at Transnistria, as it is the English-language mouthpiece of the Transnistrian government. As to the issue of these arguments, while I won't doubt the existence of a Transnistrian astroturfing campaign, it seems clear that there's also an organized campaign by Romanians, Georgians, and Greeks to suppress any mention of Abkhazia, Transnistria, and the rest as de facto states. The current procedure appears to be to ban anybody advocating for the one side, thus allowing the other side free reign, when it is, so far as I can tell, not intellectually superior in any way - the same kind of petty, narrow nationalism is proudly on display on both sides. At any rate, what I'd really like to see at Talk:List of sovereign states is some discussion by long-standing users with no personal interest in the case. Anyway, the date pattern does sound suspicious, but Britlawyer has, more broadly, been civil and polite throughout the discussion, and has highlighted legitimate sources in favor of the inclusion of Abkhazia. If he is a sock puppet of Mauco, so much the worse, but his contributions have been far more productive than those of say, Ldingley, who has got to be somebody's sockpuppet. john k 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read my proposals at the Arbcom page, you'll see that I've just been suggesting banning two from the other side also. Of course there's an awful lot of nationalism, and certainly also "organised" campaigning behind the scenes in different quarters; the difference between the Transnistrian team and the others is that they are apparently paid for it. That's why they sound more professional and more civilised too. -- I don't know about Ldingley, haven't looked closely into him. -- I can forward you the sockery evidence for you to judge yourself if you like, in private for WP:BEANS reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you fw it to me as well pls :) --Ploutarchos 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, send it along. john k 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, later tonight, I'm on the rush now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonnie's sock

I presume.

see his contribs [6]. Regards. Alæxis_¿question? 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Another "newbie" appeared - [7]. Alæxis_¿question? 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an open proxy at DESY, Hamburg? That would be weird. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Actually, it does seem to be an exploitable server. Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Alæxis_¿question? 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More of them are coming - [8], [9]. Alæxis_¿question? 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See this - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.229.17.156/ , http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.174.237.195 , http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.125.20.76 . I've posted some of them there but they're not very swift. Alæxis_¿question? 15:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thx for a quick response. Alæxis_¿question? 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked some, but couldn't confirm all of them this time. But I'm not very tech-savvy in identifying open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Testament - Martinus -

Dear Future Perfect.

I hereby ask for your help because it is very much needed. I have added the articles about Martinus and his work The Third Testament.

Days ago I saw that it was deleted. Therefore I read about the Wikipedia policies trying to understand what should be changed, and I did try to change all these details writing this time from NPOV for instance discussing the postulates. But I can’t see how we can describe this major work (43 books published in Denmark – 8000 pages here and now being translated in to more than 19 languages all over the world) without mentioning the authors intention etc.

I don’t claim that his intention is the truth, but how to show the content of such a work in a way without prejudice if not writing what he claims is in it??? In this case there has been not much debate about his work and therefore it is difficult to add all the competing opinions but I did find one scientific researcher who wrote two thick books trying to analyse the truths of Martinus claims. And I did add this researcher (Kurt Christiansen).

I know that this work is quite unusual, and that different religious capacities might feel upset, but they shouldn’t. The text claims to be love. I know that the content has great consequences in case the postulates in the 8000 pages are true. But how to know that if any knowledge about the existence of this work is deleted?

I read that Wikipedia is not censored. But If not being aloud to mention this work – probably the most voluminous work of any Danish writer until this day – well then I don’t know what censorship is. May bee you didn’t read my new text, and believe that it is exactly the same as the first text that appeared in april, but as you see it is not, I really try to follow consensus writing without bias. This is big work for me, I do this in my freetime as you probably doo, and in this case I need your help very much!

I hereby ask you to tell me what to do.

Friendly wishes,

Søren Jensen

Illyrians

Could you please take a look at this article and comment. The edit war and the talkpage. Some users want to say that "historians" (WTF? all of them) consider Albanians descendents of the Illyrians, while citing a source which confirms that it's in fact disputed.--Ploutarchos 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great and Illyrians

Mr Future.Perf.Sun why is it irrelevant for u to take into consideration editing the article Alexander the Great according to this 27 sources that me and a friend of mine gathered;

[ALEXANDER THE GREAT http://alexanderthegreat.wordpress.com/]Trojani 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

Sock puppet:165.234.104.4 by User:R9tgokunks [10] - he got blocked on only 1 week. R9tgokunks was blocked on 1 month. IP edits still: [11], [12] etc [13]. He avoids blockade. LUCPOL 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos and Fair Use Rationale

I am clearly with you on the idea of boilerplate fair use rationales for logos for the articles on the entities/organizations/whatever the logos are for. Clearly, this is the most rational way to deal with the issue, and, in fact, the whole reason why we have not, in the past, generally required fair use rationales for logos is because all rationales would be a simple boilerplate (and so, really, why bother?). Where do we go from here? Lexicon (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The people you didn't notify....

I think I got about 90 or 95% of the pages that have the new "This section temporarily removed" message via the removed Infobox Ethnic group. I did it manually, using Google and CTR+V. There's a new thread on the relevant Talk, have you read it? Some very exp. editors are disagreeing with your position... Thanks Ling.Nut 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

From Alaexis

Hi! Could you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR as you already know the situation with Abkhazia-related articles. Alæxis_¿question? 08:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Iasson at it again

Houston, we have another Iasson sock--Angleasked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who vandalized my userpage immediately after I finished reverting Spokechief's edits. And he'd only been created at 11:09 Eastern. Nuke him, please? (also mentioned at ANI)Blueboy 96 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please make a rfcu for Blueboy96 and Gorbrown. Blueboy96 reverted all changes automatically, but in Gorbrown case he did it mannualy and he changed the old tag. I always wonder who Gorbrown is. Angleasked 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And he also calls me an idiot. I am an apparent sock, but is it appropriate to call socks idiots? Is personnal attack allowed against socks? Angleasked 15:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if they're darned. Nardman1 15:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Occurtrips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got another one for you. Maybe you should file a checkuser and see if he's using open proxies. Nardman1 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome Neranei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and another. Nardman1 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking Fut. Perf. again: Third Testament - reference included

I took a look at the english references and found this quite strong reference considering the English speaking readers: Paul Brunton. He was (as you can read in wikipedia) one of the world most famous authors concerning mystics, religion etc. working as a journalist and mystic himself he visited the real mystics of these days. Paul Brunton visited Martinus first time in 1948 which is documented by Paul Bruntons own words in the Danish 1952 edition of his book: "The Secret Path"). He visited Martinus again in 1950 and during the months may to aug. 1950 (4 month) he stayed with his wife at Martinus Institut Denmark where he was tought by Martinus (!).

A Danish documentary: “Martinus som vi husker ham” contents a very positive description on Martinus written by Paul Brunton. He visited Martinus again in 1956 and made a prescript for one of Martinus book: Mankind and the world picture. This prescribt (along with the book) can be read in the Magazine “Cosmos Special Issue", 1990-4. BUT in the printed final edition of the book it is brought without the preface by Brunton because of a decision not to introduce the work of Martinus through other known people. Martinus

Is this enough reference? I cant add it and prepare the Third Testament website, because it is deleted. What do you want me to do?

Friendly wishes, Søren Jensen--S.jensen 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Juicemango

Just wondering if you're the one who just changed the password on this account. I was about to do so myself after blocking it—realizing that that's obviously the better way to prevent it ever being used—but then saw that it was already changed. I just don't want anyone to think I'm behind the accounts when a checkuser shows an IP I've used. Lexicon (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm innocent... :-) Well, I did try to log into one or two others (wonder if those checkuser folks can see that? Hey checkusers, you hear this, I'm not Faethon!). But I didn't deal with Juicemango. What is this troll fest tonight? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles on grammar

Hello Future Perfect, could you give your opinion on the articles conjugation tables, Dutch conjugation (and to a less extent Latin conjugation)? User:Bombshell and several anonymous editors have been adding very dubious and largely unsourced information during the last weeks, and it looks like this is another version of "archaic Dutch declension". My problem with those edits is that they all seem to fly straight in the face of common sense. Iblardi 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you blocked Stritch3d first

I am writing to express a concern about the userpage of User:Strich3d. He is been putting this "propaganda" and "vandalism" stuff about Bulgarian and Greek users and he keeps reinserting it. Can you please get involved? Mr. Neutron 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

From Alaexis - 2

Hi! Could you take a look at the List of sovereign states and the anons (like [14]) who have edited it lately? Thx in advance. Alæxis_¿question? 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

knock knock

Have you lost track of WT:ETHNIC again? The opinions seem to be evenly divided, but I think the "Keeps" have far more editing exp. Your last "delete" vote has less than 1 month of exp., for example...
But that's irrelevant. There's enough opinion against your move to make it seem more than a little WP:POINTy to continue to ignore them. I would hate to find another admin to undo your edits... would you please self-revert?
Ling.Nut 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma Sock Puppet

I recently got myself into a bit of an angry edit war with User:Flavius Belisarius when he appeared to admit he is a sock of User:Shuppiluliuma (amongst others) on the Talk:Turkish Navy page. I noticed that you indefinetly blocked Shuppiluliuma, and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this? ThanksHiberniantears 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an update: Since this last message, Flavius addmitted he is Shuppililiuma here: [15]. Likewise, I reported it here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shuppiluliuma (1st). Hiberniantears 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll stay out of his way for the mean time go back into the articles once there is a resolution. Hiberniantears 22:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed

Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr ^talk, checkuser clerk, 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Another article

With "German Romatnic Nationalism" in mind, you also might want to take a look at The German National awakening. Olessi 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I should inform you there is POV pusing against neutral point of view in Bitola Inscription and Samuil's Inscription. Mr. Neutron 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sock

Hi FP,

I don't really know how to reply to that - I don't understand what reason you would have to make an acusation; I've edited the page once as the subject has come up in my studies, thought I'd see what Wikipedia had to say, noted that there was no reference of a decent source that I'd been reading so thought I'd add a little information in from it. --Pretty Green 11:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I get that the edit is quite a complex one, but I just copied and pasted the format. I have read wiki for a while and i know things can get pretty heated. --Pretty Green 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Zirnevis

Would you please delete this article? I wanted to nominate it for AfD because "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but I saw that it was nominated before and the result was delete. Thank you in advance. Hessam 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to take a little wikibreak and I don't think I'll have time to deal with this one now. Can you ask somebody else please? Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not emergency. I asked you so you have a reason to come back!;-) Hessam 14:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spamlinks

Anonymous User:81.214.115.238 is systematically adding links to http://www.pointsfromturkey.com/ on many Turkey-related pages. That site has small amounts of plagiarized text (cf. http://www.pointsfromturkey.com/kalkan.html vs. http://www.turkey-webguide.com/mediterineregion.asp and http://www.guide-martine.com/mediterineregion.asp) and is not a useful EL. Do you have experience with the Spam blacklist? It seems like a long procedure.... --Macrakis 18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

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

Thank you (and enjoy your wikibreak!).--Yannismarou 20:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthead (AGAIN)

Matthead (talk · contribs) is, once again, looking for trouble and once again is making my contributions to Wikipedia harder, or impossible. His recent edits are exemplary. He provides no edit summaries whatsoever (well besides "reverting to") despite making enormous changes (reverts that is) to articles. For example; he moved Imperial immediacy back to Reichsfreiheit, eventhough "Imperial immediacy" is the term used in English. He moved Blood Court back to Blutgericht eventhough "blood court" is the English term, and the 2 articles on wikipedia about specific "blood courts" use (suprisingly) ... "blood courts". Apart from reverting these edits just because they're mine, he has also (once again) thrown himself onto conflicts with Polish contributors/articles. Now, I will have to go through all the wikipedia red tape concerning moving articles. As now the article move got "controversial" because that idiot wants to irritate people. Do something about this. Rex 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not planning on ignoring this, just like my previous request, which suddenly disapeared in your archives...Rex 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute, this is border vandalism. You are the admin most involved with this, and the one who seemingly wants to be most involved and keep involved. Semi-active is not an excuse. You're an admin 100% or 0%. Rex 19:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On thin ice?

Being an "idiot", I don't understand what your addition [16] to the talk page of Rex means. Please explain. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Trojani

Dear Sunrise, if Trojani keeps at it, do you want me to semi protect the article for a few days to prevent anonymous editing? Just let me know if you do, since I know you edit there. Love, Phaedriel - 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-blah articles

Hey man, would you support a general deletion debate for Balkan anti-foo articles? e.g. Serbophobia, Anti-Croatian sentiment, Albanophobia, Anti-Bosniak sentiment, Anti-Romanian discrimination etc. ? I've already nommed Albanophobia but to be honest this is going to continue being a problem while even one of these articles exists. We don't need any of these articles. - Francis Tyers · 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also nominated Serbophobia. Perhaps we could have a central AfD for these? - Francis Tyers · 09:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

- Francis Tyers · 10:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration bias

~~Due to what appears to be anticommunist bias on the part of Arbitration Committee members Fred Bauder and Jpgordon,~~ MariusM now faces the possibility of continuing to edit disruptively. I have registered my protest~~, and in the case of the latter member, also dissapointment.~~ It won't help to only ban one side of the dispute, ~~but it looks as if the good of the project is taking a backseat to immediate ideological gratification.~~ El_C 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Cpzphantom sockpuppet

Blocked vandal and copyright violator Cpzphantom is back doing edits to the Copa Airlines page that add no value to the site and he should not even be posting considering his history in Wikipedia. He's now using a sockpuppet account under the name "Langosto". Can this account be blocked? I appreciate the help.--Schonbrunn 16:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dodona

The user signing Dodona, but writing as an anon, has been misbehaving for some time.... But as far as I know he has not been banned, right? --Macrakis 13:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) PS Just found Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive6, where there weren't enough complainants to ban him. Let others know what's going on next time... we can't all follow all the noticeboards.... --Macrakis 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

your message

hello there Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I am honestly not happy myself, however a poll was held after all. The article was originally moved based on a poll as well, even though there was no clear majority either. So either the article gets restored to the pre-pre move name, or how else should we regard polls in that case? Because a moving war ended up I had to protect that page, or what would you recommend I do? Disregard the majority opinion of a poll? Gryffindor 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The original name of the article was at Meran-Merano which is a neutral double-name for both language groups, something I supported. It was moved at 03:41, October 14, 2006 from Meran-Merano to Merano, even though that poll showed no consensus Talk:Meran#Strawpoll_for_new_name either. I stayed away from moving that back again, and chose to initiate a poll again to makes things more clear. Are you saying I should ask another sysop to move it in that case? Gryffindor 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am little perplexed now. The article was moved originally by no clear majority consensus, by definition of your words. Now you are going to move it back? If it would be moved to the original double-name that it had before the dubious polls, then that would be acceptable. Gryffindor 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if there was no clear majority in any votes it never should have been moved in the first place. I am going to give this a rest, because I am so annoyed with the whole situation at this moment. Gryffindor 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Civility

I really can't understand how it can be possible that such a disruptive user is still an administrator; however, since you asked me, I will not mark as vandalism the future vandalisms by Gryffindor.--Supparluca 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

195.114.1.10, 203.109.157.80

Looks like Bonnie. Could you check and take care of? Thx in advance. Alæxis_¿question? 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another one - SecureM (talk · contribs). I wouldn't bother you if he edited only talkpages... Alæxis_¿question? 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet another one - LionKing (talk · contribs). Alæxis_¿question? 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New shipment - [17], [18]. TiA. Alæxis_¿question? 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merano

The method being followed here was discussed in some detail at Talk:Communes of South Tyrol. Our normal method of Follow English usage, if that fails, Use the Official Name doesn't work very well in the South Tyrol, because most of the communes are too small to be mentioned much in English, and all of them have two or three official names, which are officially co-equal.

What we decided therefore was to follow English usage where ascertainable, which it appears to be for the big towns of Bolzano, Merano and Brixen; it may be for some of the smaller communes, like Brenner, which is constrained by the Brenner Pass. Where this doesn't work, follow the usage of the majority, as shown by the Italian linguistic survey. Everywhere except Merano, which is split 51-49, there is a large majority for one of the three languages involved, often 80-90%.

User:Icsunonove has argued that there is a case for English usage being determinable also at Urtijëi, which is advertised under the Italian name Ortisei, but there has not been a move request yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Mr. Trojani

Hi there dear Sunrise! I hope you're doing fine, and that you return from your wikibreak soon! :) Regarding Trojani's behavior, this is the fourth time he evades the block, right? We're entering the grey zone where so-long-farewell begins to shape itself. My own personal impulse is to reset and impose a long-term block, maybe a month or two, and move on to indef block immediately after that if he insists just once more, perhaps also presenting the case at Community Sanction Noticeboard for a formal ban. Then again, at this point I doubt he will reform himself. As you're more familiar with his activities than me, I leave the final decision to you, but know that I'll support your call here either way. Please drop by my talkpage if you wish to discuss this further. Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just like we predicted, dear Sunrise, Trojani tried to evade the block once again. As this was the sixth time he did so, and having warned him on each separate ocassion, I've had no choice but to indef block him. I also semi protected Illyrians for a week to prevent disruption on his part. My thoughts are, if he once again reappears after that, we should move the discussion to CSN - what do you think? Love, Phaedriel - 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Block Vandal

Hi, unfortunately there are not too many admins on right now and there is a problematic vandal that keeps making malicious edits. Could you block this guy? Thanks. Special:Contributions/220.245.232.182 [19] -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Romanian article

Well, 4/6 isn't that bad. And the 'Serbophobia' one is significantly reduced (almost to a dicdef now). So... would you mind AfD'ing the Romanian article again? I think we have precedent now, and I think it would probably be a faux pas for me to nom it. If you want to wait no problem... If nothing happens in a couple of weeks I'll do it myself... but it might be worth doing it while we're on a roll. - Francis Tyers · 07:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's keep it to the same number: Anti-Turkism, Anti-Italianism, Anti-Armenianism, Anti-Europeanism, Anti-Malay racism, Anti-Canadianism (or Anti-Catalanism). The most problematic of these are: "Anti-Turkism" and "Anti-Armenianism" I think. Do you want to do the honours, or should I? Incidentally, we should be aware of "pairs"/"groups", we can't really nom Turks without also nomming Armenians. Also 'Russophobia' should not be nommed without 'Polonophobia'. Surprisingly (and fortunately) we don't have anti-Balt articles! - Francis Tyers · 08:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shuppiluliuma

Hi Fut. Perf., do you have an opinion about what should be done in this case? If User:Flavius Belisarius is editing constructively, I'm inclined to let him keep doing so. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

Thanks for warning me. A few comments:

I have been reverted essentially by only one editor: User:Dahn, together with his associates, who otherwise did not contribute towards those articles.
There are more than Romanian communists articles involved: eg. Iuliu Maniu, where User:Dahn defends an absurd lead paragraph.
Most articles I work on are immediately modified by User:Dahn. Example: Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, where he pushes a version containing broken links, wrong dates and wrong information. Here you will find a showcase of User:Dahn's knowingly pushing of a false version.
On several articles, I am not alone in wanting to fend off [User:Dahn]]'s POV. In recent days the active editors User:Dpotop and User:AdrianTM have supported the changes I make on a few pages of their interest, like Valter Roman or Alexandru Nicolschi. These changes reflect MoS:BIO and common WP style as for instance in the Stalin and Lenin pages and as discussed in extenso on the talk pages. There are more editors interested in those pages who contributed in the past whose opinion could be relevant.

It would be nice if you were not partial in your assesment of the situation and tried to contain User:Dahn singular attitude towards my posts. Two days ago he started a strong personal attack against me, which is unacceptable, besides being insane. Icar 08:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you find my interpretation of MoS:BIO utterly without merit, how about Stalin? Or Lenin? "My interpretation" is consistent with these examples. It seems that you do not understand the issue at stake.
You wrongly accuse me of "ganging up" with friends against some user. I do not contribute here to make friends.

Icar 09:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC) It would be nice, after disrupting my editing, to express your view on the Stalin and Lenin articles. Icar 12:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to add my support for some of Icar's changes, till now I've counted 4 editors against 3 editors, there's no way to determine which variant is right. Icar's variants are not incorrect and they use the same standard for listing the legal names used on pages like: Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Yasser Arafat -- I personally cannot have any constructive discussion with User:Dahn, and the rest of the people who side with Dahn (see Khoikhoi) they don't even have the good will (or courage) to support their reverts with arguments, as for Dahn he accused me of different things including: sophistry, projections, not making sense, rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, etc, I have no desire to get into any discussion with him, but I don't see why valid edits are reverted with impunity and he doesn't get the same warning as Icar especially after unpardonable personal attack (accusing Icar of Żydokomuna (actually antisemitism). Is that sophistry or I see a clear personal attack that everybody chooses to ignore and then they punish the other side for "overreacting" and calling Dahn a vandal. I see somebody accusing somebody else of antisemitism for a valid edit and that person doesn't get even a warning, I start to wonder what the heck is going on with Wikipedia (I guess I'm new here, huh?) -- AdrianTM 03:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

- Look, you guys have exactly three options. Either you go for a serious process of dispute resolution, probably involving mediation, where you will treat Dahn with respect and a constructive attitude. Or you leave the articles alone. Or you continue your revert war and get blocked. If, as you say, you feel you "cannot have a constructive discussion" with him, that's tough luck, because it reduces your alternatives to just two. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

- - There can't be a revert war (as any other war) without the existence of two parties, I find it strange that one side is punished for a revert war (me) and the other gets away scot-free... and you say that this is because the other party was maltreated by somebody else: banned users and User:Icar, what does that has to do with my reverts, it's my reverts against Dahn's reverts, however it's me who gets banned and you justify this because Dahn was attacked by other persons. I'm not sure I follow the logic. I don't ask for Dahn to be banned, I couldn't care less about him, but your actions and especially your reasoning motivating why you can't be bothered to take action against Dahn for similar behavior as mine strikes me as strange -- especially that I didn't ask you to ban Dahn in the first place, being defensive about that (and using some lame logic for it: "he was attacked before by vandals therefore he can do what you can't do") is pretty telling. You ignore blatant personal attacks done by Dahn, you ignore his edit war and you punish me for my part in the edit war claiming that Dahn was attacked by vandals before therefore he gets to do his edit war and his personal attacks without worries. Principles, standards, consistency, logic? (strange animals aren't they). Don't bother to respond, I can guess from now that I would not be interested in your response. -- AdrianTM 01:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Future Perf, I am also puzzled at your partisan view of the editing dispute. You have one editor against all the other (active) editors, and you call this "ganging up" although there is no concertation between me and AdrianTM. I fact, I must take the blame for convincing AdrianTM that User:Dahn's versions were POV and wrong. You did not answer my query above: you stated that my view was "utterly without merit", but then you failed to explain why in less obscure articles like Stalin, exactly the same view prevails (I did not touch Stalin so far). I assume you are a good faith admin. You became involved in this dispute, now I am asking for your assistance with the mediation you were mentioning. I am thoroughly convinced that we are facing an editor who tries to push a political agenda. Thank you in advance. Icar 07:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't hang too high on the hope of mediation if the mediation is done by guys who display brilliant logic like "I won't take any action against Dahn, because other people including vandals mistreated him, however I will take action against you for the same revert war". -- AdrianTM 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I just posted a RfC for Vasile Luca. Actually I still hope that Future Perfect acted in good faith (not manipulated by User:Dahn) and will frankly acknowledge his mistake. Icar 08:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, over the past hours, Icar has reverted to his version against consensus reached on Talk:Vasile Luca, has again labeled me a Trotskyist and made other allegations of that nature (misquoting me in the process, as the diffs he and I provided show), and has removed my replies to his and another user's posts from that very talk page. Dahn 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Above you have 3 lies. First: consensus seems to emerge towards the rational version I am supporting: "my" version seems to be endorsed more or less by Dl.goe, AdrianTM (when he is in a good shape), Dpotop, and partly PouponOnToast. The other side has besides User:Dahn Francis Tyers, an editor who just revertes to User:Dahn without any comprehension of the article, and partly Turgidson. Nobody besides User:Dahn fully endorses his version, except for the editor acting like proxy. Second: I merely copy-pasted User:Dahn's own words about his own beliefs, which may explain the POV he tries to push. Thirdly, I removed a flood of comments by him (attacks against me, and repeats ad nauseam of his POV statements) which effectively blocked the RfC. It is already unreadable, in fact. I give it up for some time. Icar 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. None of the users Icar cite has expressed support for his version ("in a good shape"?), while all the users he cites as supporting do not do so "in part", and have made their opion known on the basis of reliable data.

You have the two diffs which Icar claims to have "copy-pasted", both provided on the talk page with my appropriate comments, in addition to a third diff of which Icar has been made aware in the past, which should leave no doubt as to him manipulating my statements (in all the replies which he has tried to remove).

It's needless to point out the guidelines he broke in removing my comments from the talk page, especially since I believe he is fully aware of them by now. I will not even bother replying to the issue of me making "attacks" (?) when defending myself from unsubstantiated or manipulative statements, not to mention Icar's theory about "POV on talk pages"... Dahn 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Future Perfect, speak for yourself about obtuseness and obnoxiousness. You are just lying in your comment on my page concerning your friend Dahn. You are lying to my face about those quotes. They cannot be more clear, the fact that you dismiss them proves that you two work together. As for your warnings, I could not care less. In the future however, refrain from using such a disgusting tone. I have asked you above a specific question regarding an issue where you ventured I was "utterly without merit", think first to address it or to apologise. Have a good one Icar 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh

The move-warring was mostly (though not entirely) the result of me screwing up the move procedure and frantically trying to fix it - which may, or may not, have been exacerbated by someone else trying to do the move in the other direction.

The majestically arrogant language was the result of me indulging a momentary whim: I felt that a) the solution was blatantly obvious to someone uninvolved, and b) it would be cool to sound majestically arrogant (what exactly does 'so mote it be' mean?). I've left a more detailed explanation about Cyrus's block on the noticeboard. DS 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Had to look that one up too. "Mote" is a Middle English subjunctive form of "must", apparently. And to sound even more majestically arrogant and archaic now, Sa mote hit nu be that thou gange forth & hine a-blocke, forthy that an move-warryng synnere othere ne shulle ever smiten mid admin-tooles. So ga nu hence and ne synne na more.

Or something to that effect... --Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nnnnno. No, I'm not going to unblock him, because I didn't block him over the dispute re: danah boyd, I blocked him because of the yronwode move. I showed him a list of several articles which were counter to the guideline whose implementation he was proposing; he started changing those articles so that they supported his position rather than mine. This struck me as being a definite violation of WP:POINT, so I blocked him. Admittedly, he only changed one such article, but is that because he would have stopped anyway, or because I blocked him? I dunno, and to be honest this is incredibly minor. DS 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gah!

I'll stop editing for now to maintain my temper:

I won't list in WP:ANI, nor for WP:SSP, neither for WP:RFCN, neither for WP:AIV, neither will I warn in talks for WP:3RR, nor for WP:VAND, nor for WP:FRINGE, nor for WP:V... nor will I fill up this list... Niko Silver 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Buffander again, User:Pocopocopocopoco NokhchiBorz 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread. The issue is much more serious than I initially thought and involves off-wiki collaboration for organized reverts and undeletion of articles (such as Anti-Macedonism), legal threats, multiple off-wiki insults etc etc, all backed up with proof. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Low lives".... Thanks. Niko Silver 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Provinces of Italy

Good day. I saw the daily edit war on Provinces of Italy and I tried to rectify the situation by referencing Brittanica for English usage. For the Italian-German speaking province of Bolzano-Bozen I used both languages. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone because it is referenced -and- all inclusive. I'm barely on WP lately, so hopefully you can keep an eye on things.. regards, Icsunonove 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks

Hello. R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back and edit-warring again, erasing whole passages without justification and randomly putting misspellt German names whereever he can, like here. RCS 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Buffander back

Dear Fur, the banned user Buffander is back User:Pocopocopocopoco. His has another sock now. NokhchiBorz 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, I am not User:Buffadren. I just signed up with an account on Wikipedia a few days ago, though I've been reading it for a while. I have an interest in the Frozen Conflicts and may have some sympathy to the newly created states. I presume this is why User:NokhchiBorz thinks that I am Buffadren. I will do my best to maintain NPOV my contributions. Pocopocopocopoco 16:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Icar

Icar (talk · contribs) is back. Check the contribs. - Francis Tyers · 14:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d

This user for the past month, or might be even longer, has been edit warring on three articles. One is his user page where he inserts various inappropriate stuff as "vandalism" and such. Mr. Neutron 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik decided

The above named arbitration case, in which you have commented, has been decided. The Arbitration Committee endorses the current indefinite ban on Tajik, and also has banned him for one year should his indefinite ban be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again?

Hi! A certain new user has emerged with the familiar pattern of contributions - Moldovan to Romanian language edits and occasional reverts of my edits in completely unrelated articles like Georgia (country). Could you check him? Thanks in advance, Alæxis_¿question? 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU gave the result that possibly he's Bonny. Alæxis_¿question? 06:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali remedy proposals

I took a look at your proposed remedies in the Abu badali workshop, but it occurred to me they might be more conspicuous if you gave them captions, as otherwise it is not apparent from the table of contents that you have added them. I would have done it myself, but I didn't know what headings you might want to use. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um ... never mind. :) Newyorkbrad 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Coliseum

Thanks for your note. That tells me more about what to do in the future. The main justifications of fair use seem to be (1) no free alternative easily available (i.e. when the subject of the photo no longer exists); and (2) that it is being used as a visual reference in the article, not just a "decoration". Baseball Bugs 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I think it was you who recently added this statement;

The "very historically significant" bogus fair use template almost never works, and is certainly false here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

to this picture. thumb|88px|left I guess I beg to differ with you. I mean, "bogus" ? " and is certainly false here" ? The picture was a publicity shot (they wanted as many folks as possible to see it) taken for an architectural firm that no longer exists, published in a magazine that crashed with the Stock Market. Or shortly there after. However I have decided to let what ever of my posting that someone feels compeled to remove to go. I have about 8 album covers happening right now which, as far as I know everyone knows are okay to use, but still . . . . ...... folks just seem to feel a need to create issues. After years of serious wikipeding I have been reduced to the point of not really caring. So, do what you need to do. Carptrash 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand your frustration to some degree, but the solution is just to write more precise fair use rationales. I'm not even saying there couldn't be a valid one for this image, I'm just saying the rationale you've given doesn't fit the image. Sorry for the snappy remark, but I was a bit pissed because that particular "model" rationale used to be on some help page for months or years, it was never a very good rationale to begin with, and then people copy-and-pasted it apparently thoughtlessly (and against the explicit instructions on that page) for images where it just doesn't fit at all. "Historically significant photo"? but the photo isn't significant; the building is. -- "The event depicted was very historically significant"? But the picture isn't even depicting any "event"! -- "shows how... was significant to the general public"? But the image isn't showing anything about the general public! (cheering multitudes crowding around the building? or what?) You'd also need to specify why you have to use an old photograph of this building, which is presumably still standing. Is the article discussing any structural changes to the building that would require a visual comparison of what it looked like in 1928 with what it looks like today? Couldn't somebody just walk to the college tomorrow and take a snapshot and we could use that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The high school in question now has trees all around it, making it difficult. or impossible, to get a shot of the whole building. I posted that shot - which I do consider historically significant because as an architectural historian I consider the documenting of brand new buildings to be an historical event. The fellow working on the article was having trouble getting pictures and I knew that I had a crummy xerox of that old one, so I photoshopped it & posted it. It was a gift. if it turns out to be a shop lifted gift, well then it should go back to . . . . . ....... whomever owns it. A fact I have tried to learn for maybe 20 years since I made the xerox but with no success. The best any of us can do is what we think/feel is right. Carptrash 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

Hi Fut,

Can you please take a look at this dispute over the inclusion over the inclusion of a section dedicated to one scholars view that Kurds suffered/are suffering a genocide in Turkey? Thanks, --A.Garnet 09:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Sorry, I'm technically still on wikibreak. Just dropped back in these days for the sake of a specific affair I wanted to have a word in, but not this one, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, sorry I did not see the sign, but believe me I am more tired of these petty disputes than anyone. I also think however that you have a good idea where all this pov pushing is coming from and I get dissapointed that despite your criticism of it you never seem to become actively involved to resolve it. I only say this because I know you are more familiar with these editors than other admins and I think you are well placed to contribute positively. Anyway, have a good break and hopefully see you soon. --A.Garnet 09:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Indulgence.png

I scanned that in out of a library book, about four years ago. I am not even sure I remember the title now. It may or may not be authentic, but if it is fake, it isn't one of mine. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That second image that you linked to is probably superior to the one I uploaded quite long ago for several reasons, and being a reproduction of a piece of graphic art, is surely permissible to snag and clean up. (I'd convert it into a greyscale PNG and remove some of the JPEG artifacts, and the German text below.) Come to think of it, the use of long s in that image I uploaded is inconsistent also. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

At the stub Genealogia deorum gentilium I just made an article from. Please edit to make any improvements you can see or give me some suggestions on the article Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug ^talk 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.

Thanks for your comment. Oh, I see from your edit history (you've been looking through mine, apparently, so it's only fair that I look through yours as well) that as far as warnings go, you're not an "equal opportunity warner"! I do think that if warning is your thing, you should spread more warning around, as regards wikistalking. It's really no good. If you look a couple of comments up on my talk page (did you see it), you'll see a great profusion of wikistalking from one of the best in the business. I don't even need to say the name, I'm sure you know who it is! :) Cheers, Badagnani 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's so funny--I just realized that you wrote to me a few days ago admitting that *you* were stalking me too! You deserve a warning too, but I've never heard of an editor warning themselves. I guess anything is possible these days! Badagnani 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Can we just all quit it with the "wikistalking" nonsense? Looking at another's contributions is not wikistalking; we all do it (as is shown by today's antics). --Iamunknown 08:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I do wish editors would stop wikistalking, as has been happening massively and without shame (despite the consensus findings of the Chowbok and Abu Badali affairs, which served to drive a number of formerly productive and knowledgeable editors away from our project, permanently). Badagnani 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree, Badagnani. I wish editors, yourself included, would stop throwing around that meaningless and divisive epithet. Looking through contributions does not constitute wikistalking. Otherwise, you, me, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and everyone else who has ever operated on Wikipedia is a wikistalker. --Iamunknown 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring those lighthouse pics, Fut.perf. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Vandalism

You vandalized an image, Natasha klauss43.012807jpg.jpg without warning, notice or rationale.

The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

Restore the image immediately. Mosquera 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No such image exists. Would you please link to the image in question? Thanks, --Durin 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is now deleted. --Iamunknown 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You many not remove good-faith posting from talk pages.
The posting you claim is sockpuppetry appeared after the block expired.
I am dishonored that you consistently behave as though I am sullying your pristine social experiment. three days ago, I didn't know you. Now you're in my face, all over a jpeg file.
I must insist that you apologize for putting technocratic ideals over simple human decency. I attempted to pleasantly instruct you that human beings matter more than political abstractions. I'm sorry you took offense, but in no way was it my intention.
Leave me in peace, as I intend positive contributions to Wikipedia.

Thank you and have a pleasant day. Mosquera

Deletion of images Image:NCLJewelLoResPressPhoto.jpg, et al.

I am disappointed that you, an administrator, would choose to ignore the 7-day window that contributers allegedly have to submit rationale for not deleting an image. I am not the only person who contributed to the pages in question, nor am I the only person who read them. I don't know if your conflict with User:Mosquera clouded your judgment, as you clearly tracked the brief discussion we had regarding my request to use the rationale he developed for the use of promotional images. Obviously there are many individuals on both sides of the "fair-use" debate who pay attention to these cases. By ignoring the 7-day window and deleting the images outright, you denied anyone interested the opportunity to participate in the dialogue. --OneCyclone 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

These were absolutely obvious cases of replaceable fair-use images, and parallel to numerous other cases that had already led to deletion. As I said on your talkpage, I can see no benefit in going through a bureaucratic process just for the sake of it when the result is 100% obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The 7-day rule is there to allow that time for people to participate. You may not have liked my reasoning, which is your prerogative, but you denied anyone else the chance to participate. I'm asking that in the future, if presented with a similar scenario, you abide by the 7-day rule. --OneCyclone 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the rule says 2 days. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. It's these kinds of details I never can remember correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you had best update that template, huh? Every one of them says "7" days. Thanks guys/gals, appreciate your help! --OneCyclone 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems there's been some to and fro about the processes recently, and I may have missed some of it. But anyway, the essence of the rule is to give the uploader time to get aware of the case and make their point, which you did. In the unlikely case that anybody else should come up with a reason why these images should be kept after all, we can still undelete them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and stuff

Looks like you were right in blocking M. I tend to be extra cautious about such things, but the consensus seems to be that you did the right thing. Thanks for defending the Wiki. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please apologise

Please apologise forthwith for your character attack on myself. I would strongly recommend you not make suggestions based on inflammatory and unfounded accustaions, and also request that you pay greater attention to checking facts and reading what other editors have to say before you make such proposals. As you can read, what you have suggested is completely false and you are barking up the wrong tree. As suggested, now would be the time to apologise and leave me alone. PageantUpdater 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I really don't see much to retract or apologise for. If you read the corresponding proposed "finding of fact" ([20]), I make it quite clear I always assumed your uploads were made in good faith - and yet, objectively, they reflected a failure to understand the policies (which were already in place back when you made the first uploads). And I continue to maintain that it is ultimately this failure in complying with the policies that is the root cause of the present conflict, not Abu's methods in countering it.

At this moment, it seems unlikely the committee is going to adopt those proposals of mine anyway, so the issue is really moot, more or less. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

abuse of admin role

I am Buffadren

You blocking of user:buffadren in what you claimed was indefinate block but in reality was a life ban was a disgracful abuse of you admin role. Buffadren's crime in your explination was that he shared the same IP address as a former user Mark Street that had long since announced his retirement from Wiki and honoured that declaration. Buffadren gave a valid explination for Mark Street using the same IP. Other adnmins did not understand your logic in blocking Buffadren but you inisisted.

Buffadren had stated he has no personal connection with Tiraspol Times.

Buffadren was the only 'pro' Transnistrian editor on the Transnistrian page. Instead you banned him leaving the Anti Transnistrian hating editors from Romania to destroy the negotiated work of months, Buffadren was an excellent editor on many pages related to different topics. In banning Buffadren you denied Transnistria a voice on its own page.

The current Transnistria page is nothing more than a long list of abuse that borders on racism and facism.

I want my block dropped or my case reviewwd by an independent admin. 193.120.95.11 08:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren / Mark Street, the Arbitration committee has reviewed your ban and has confirmed it, at least as regards Transnistria-related topics. By the Arbcom decision, I could unblock one of your accounts, but only under the condition that you stay totally away from Transnistria, and that you clarify your conflict of interest as regards your affiliation with that Ireland-based company of yours that runs TT. Either you are Mark Street, or you work for the same organisation, or else you wouldn't be constantly sharing that IP in Dublin, right? So, tell us what organisation that is, and you're ready to go as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

oh fuck many socks here, Buffadren/Mark Street, Mauco..--Tighinian 12:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok

Ψεμματα παντως δεν ειναι.--KaragouniS 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ωπα τι βλεπω? Θα βαλετε το αρθρο του ψευδοκρατους σε εκπαιδευτικο cd? Ωραιοι εισαστε ρε --KaragouniS 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

βασικα με αυτο το εντιτ ηθελα να στειλω ενα μυνημα. Επισης αυτη η κατηγορια χρησιμοποειται μονο απο 1-2 χρηστες εδω μεσα.--KaragouniS 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NisarKand back again

Hello. Banned user NisarKand is banned again with yet another sockpuppet. User:Mirrori1. Please see if you can block this sockpuppet as well. Thanks. --Behnam 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A Clear Mistake

Hello. I would like to point your attention to:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1361/842254497_92905df431_b.jpg

... which is a screenshot about an image recently deleted in the anti-fair use hysteria.

As this clearly shows, the image - which was deleted because It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use - was indeed made available by CBS to ALL media outlets. Also please note that the AP lists this image as an "Undated CBS promotional photo".

As user Abu Badali put it in the deletion review, All we're asking for is some proof of this detailed description of CBS's distribution methods and and this image was really distributed according to this description. So here it is. Will you assist in restoring this image?

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi. Regarding Image:Metropolitan Trifon.jpg see talk page. Copyright info on Image:Zhiguli.jpg was clarified. --Brand спойт 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:From the other side

Hi there, thanks for contacting me.

The problem that I have with most of the images in the "no fair use" category is that the bot looks for the fair use template and if the template isn't there, the bot tags it. If there was an appropriate license and source, I certainly do remove the speedy tag and add in the requisite text such as "book cover X" to validate the use. I personally do not believe the fair use template is required. What Badagnani was complaining about was no notice of the tagging that took place over two weeks ago. Additionally, that image was being used inappropriately in the article of the subject, not the album. But whatever, I'll just leave it all alone if no one is happy. Keegan^talk 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I saw Badagnani's postings above after I left the message and then It All Made Sense. Seriously, that was just a frustrating note to go to bed on and then wake up to your message. It was late, I was being hassled...everything's good now :) Happy editing. Keegan^talk 13:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Okres, Okrug, Kraj, Krai, Kreis

[21]

See= Category:Country subdivisions

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

[22]

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

[23] (translated: [24]

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

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

see [25]

[26]
[27]

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

Etymological connections

from PIE base *reg- "move in a straight line," hence, "direct, rule, guide" (cf. Skt. raj- "a king, a leader;" Avestan razeyeiti "directs;" Pers. rahst "right, correct;" L. regere "to rule," rex "a king, a leader," rectus "right, correct;" O.Ir. ri, Gaelic righ "a king;" Gaul. -rix "a king," in personal names, e.g. Vircingetorix; Goth. reiks "a leader;" O.E. rice "kingdom," -ric "king," rice "rich, powerful," riht "correct;" Goth. raihts, O.H.G. recht, O.Swed. reht, O.N. rettr "correct").

kirkos(Greek: "ring", "circle")
Kirk(Scots: "Church")
Kirche(German: "Church")
Church(English:)
bezirk
Krai(Russian: "End", "Region")[28]
Kraj(Serbian: "End", "Region", from KRUG("Circle"), from Greek: acre)^[1]
Okrajak(Serbian: "a piece of something", "a division"^[1]
Krajina
Okresti(Old Slavic)
Okres
Okrug
Okruzi
Pokrajina
Ukraine(from Russian Ukraina/Ukraijna, lit. "border, frontier," from u- "at" + krai "edge.")^[2]
Raion
Rad(Serbian: "work")(link below)
Urdenje(Serbian: "arrangement, system")[29]
Radenje(Serbian: "cycle", "system")(link above)
Gradenje(Serbian: "construction, building")(link above)
Red(Serbian: "order")(link above)
ordijanje(Serbian: "disorder")(link above)
outrage
orgao(Greek)
organ
ouragan
origanon(Greek)
origanum(Latin)
oranje
orange
regionem(Latin, ")
regalis(Latin, "King-like")
regno(Italian, "Region")
ringen
rex(Latin; gen regis; "King")
regionem(Latin, nom. regio, "direction, boundary, district, country")
ringen
ring(from O.E. hring "circular band," from P.Gmc. *khrengaz (cf. O.N. hringr, O.Fris. hring, Ger. Ring), lit. "something curved," from PIE base *(s)ker- "to turn, bend" (cf. L. curvus "bent, curved," crispus "curly;" O.C.S. kragu "circle," and perhaps Gk. kirkos "ring," koronos "curved"). Meaning "place for prize fight and wrestling bouts" (c.1330) is from the space in a circle of bystanders in which such contests were once held (ringside is attested from 1866). Meaning "combination of interested persons" is from 1829. The verb meaning "to make a circle around" is O.E. ymbhringan. The circus ringmaster is recorded from 1873. Tree ring is from 1671; fairy ring is from 1626.
regere(Latin: "to rule", "direct")
region(English, from Middle English. regioun, O.Fr. region, from L. regionem (nom. regio) "direction, boundary, district, country," from regere "to direct, rule" (see regal).
reich(German:"King")
real(Spanish:"Noble", "Royal", "Credit")
regal(English:"Noble", "King-like")(c.1330, from L. regalis "royal, kingly, belonging to a king," from rex (gen. regis) "king," from PIE base *reg- "move in a straight line," hence, "direct, rule, guide" (cf. Skt. raj- "a king, a leader;" Avestan razeyeiti "directs;" Pers. rahst "right, correct;" L. regere "to rule," rex "a king, a leader," rectus "right, correct;" O.Ir. ri, Gaelic righ "a king;" Gaul. -rix "a king," in personal names, e.g. Vircingetorix; Goth. reiks "a leader;" O.E. rice "kingdom," -ric "king," rice "rich, powerful," riht "correct;" Goth. raihts, O.H.G. recht, O.Swed. reht, O.N. rettr "correct").)
Aryan(Avestan:"Noble")
Arya(Persian:"Noble")
Righ(Old Irish:"King")
ryan(Irish, from "O' Riain", from Old Irish Righ+an, "Little King")
Royal(English:"Noble", "King-like")

and since you speak slavic....[Okres Slovakian Wikipedia....notice "Bezirk", "kreis" and "okrug" -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

de:Kraj-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[30], [31] Can you PLEASE RESPOND, instead of just going to keep covering up obvious connections along with User:Tulkolahten, with blatant and blind abrupt rejections of any material whatsoever.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Armeniapedia

Armeniapedia has been mentioned in the news recently, and I'm asking at deletion review to see the content of the speedily deleted article. Andjam 06:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete

Yeah, sorry about that. I was thinking of Greier who was the original creator of that page. Miskin 10:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

R9tgokunks Complaint

User R9tgokunks vandalized the Detroit Lakes, Minnesota page, by adding his false and deceptive claim that the high school has a high drop out rate. He did not do so out of good faith, as he commented on his addition to the page by saying, "I doubt if anyone attends (the Detroit Lakes schools) willingly. I've seen the conditions there." He is expressing his opinion and not at all fact. I am aware of his history of vandalism and urge you to take action. Thank you much. 25 July 2007 UMINN44

Buffadren

I am not the person you claimed I am. I am not part of a campaign to support anyone. You blocked me without fair trial or cause. All I ask is to be unblocked only so I can present my case on your page. I will not edirt elsewhere.. Buffadren

DRV

Hi, an IFD discussion in which you participated is now up for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 25#Image:Past doctors.jpg. Your input is requested there. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Hi, a while ago you warned User:Jingiby not to recreate pages with entirely copied text from copyrighted external sources. He has done this again with Metodi Shatorov this time copying information word-for-word from this site. He has also been copying large amounts of information from certain articles and pasting it on other articles. Frightner 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Provinces of Italy

Hi, I inform you that User:Rarelibra restarted the edit war on the Provinces of Italy article, and I ask you to block him as you wrote here. According to his block log it won't be a big problem for him.--Suppar luca 06:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent?

Greetings Future Perfect at Sunrise. I have no problem with you running a checkuser on me. Like I said, run one against Buffadren as well as I have been accused of being him as well (by banned user:NokhchiBorz). I just find it strange that you would be influenced by accusations that banned sockpuppeteres make about me. I also looked at one of the other users in the checkuser list, user:Britlawyer and you banned him eventhough the checkuser found no association. I hope that is not your plan with me. I have done nothing wrong and the small number of edits I made in Transnistria were completely justified. Ask user:Mikkalai for more of a background on the recent goings on in Transnistria. Pocopocopocopoco 00:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

When Mackensen said "stale" at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/William Mauco, I think he was using it as a technical term. William Mauco's main account's last edit is too long ago to provide checkusers with an IP address, so Mackensen declined the request because he wouldn't be able to find anything of use. That's what "stale" means in technical terms - stale IP information. Picaroon (t) 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOWN

Please see some questions regarding your issue at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

My apologies, I forgot to reprotect before going on holiday. Thanks. yandman 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu

Hello mister, maybe you would like to notice that User:Anonimu is a very disruptive editor which is always emerging conflicts within the Romanian - related articles. Most of the Romanian wikipedians are fighting with him as he always introduces false information reflecting his own personal political views. That IP was absolutely correct when he reported the incident, and I see no reason to remove it. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you are not in the position to teach me Romanian history for sure. Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia unified with Romania in 1918 and were occupied by the Soviet forces in late 1940. When the Romanian armies went to fight against Soviet occupation forces in 1941, they were going to liberate the Romanian occupied territories - so liberation is the proper term that should be used in the article. Regarding User:Anonimu, he is always fighting with the other normal Romanian users in different topics - just study a bit his wiki history and you'll see in which kind of conflicts he is always involved. Regarding your abusive blocking, I am going to report you, just to be sure you learn how to count in the future - I can't accept having my block log opened abusive. --Eurocopter tigre 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Map

Hi mate

Map "Franks" was from a pre-existing map on wiki: 01:31, 30 January 2007 . . Patrickneil . . 2270×1789 (5,083,356 bytes) ({{ew|en|Wirya}} Map of Kurdistan and Mediterranean and European lands anout 1097. Map from: [32], in Public Domain {PD-old} )

I just cropped to the Balkans and added some names

I will try to make my own map re: the other one. might contact you if i get stuck

Cheers Hxseek 01:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Start over? Drop it?

How about we start over? Instead of your making assumptions of me, being judgemental, and even going so far as to threaten me, how about asking some questions?

We obviously have very, very different interpretations of various policies/guidelines and how to work within them. That's Wikipedia.

Better yet, how about we just to drop the whole thing? You say you're going to monitor the articles in question. That's what we need. You said, "I really hope we can soon get a somewhat better atmosphere on those articles again." As far as I'm concerned, this has already happened. --Ronz 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

HxSeek

Yes, that is the map i was referring to

Thanks mate

When a sock is still a sock

Hi, Perfect. I was reading this conversation and I want to add something to it. You said, The identity of the accounts and the IP was obvious and never concealed. Without an element of attempted deception (faking support for one's opinions by others, passing off reverts as reverts by others etc.), how can there be abusive sockpuppetry? Here's a situation that might alter your view in general (though not at the specific case you were discussing with MastCell).

Several editors and I have been having an awful time with a user who had straight-up unsigned sockpuppets. After much work, he was finally convinced to "sign" his posts -- but he doesn't sign in. He uses multiple IP's and then types his name in manually. This superficially gets him past your standard about intent to deceive, but it does not resolve what is actually a very serious problem in conflict resolution, where it's important to use article history pages and user contribs pages to know who changed what when, and to see what a particular user has done.

Anyone trying to review this user's conduct has to check several "contribs" pages, and of course can't use the article history page at all, because his typed signature doesn't appear there -- only a series of different IP's, all of which are him. It gives the impression of, say, four editors making eight edits apiece, instead of one editor making 32 edits all alone. Furthermore, he's been warned so many times by so many people in such detail that at this point, even the most generous reviewer allowing for the maximum of innocent ignorance has got to consider that he's doing it on purpose to dilute and disperse his record.

Since he's typing in his name manually, he facially meets your "never concealed" standard, but by refusing to use the tildes, he is effectively (and possibly intentionally) concealing his own contributions on article history pages, article talk pages, and all the contribs pages for his multiple identities. It's my feeling that WP:SOCK is still a legit way to deal with this. -- Lisasmall 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to keep interrupting your vacation. I answered your comments on my talk page and would like to know if I can move my opening comment over there so the conversation is all in one place. -- Lisasmall 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A gentle reminder

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Wikipedia. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.[33] Durova^Charge! 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) ;)

Could you help?

I replied to a comment by Hxseek [34], but I'm sure you could do a better job of mediating a hostile act made from an assumption of bad faith. --Ronz 00:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry you don't like how I use templates. However, you're assuming bad faith in your repeated accusations that I'm using them in a harassing and disingenious manner. Please learn to AFG. Thanks. --Ronz 15:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Better [35]? --Ronz 17:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are very unfair that is what I think for you

Fut-purf the only reason that you block me and you are so careful to delete every statement of me , is that I insult your greekness but with your extensive racisem that you show makes you a suitable candidate to be blocked although you are like a “ greek “ god here in encyclopedia, you chose it yourself the suitable one . Dodona

Shuppiluliuma/Flavius Belisarius

Flavius Belisarius is the self admited sockpuppet of Shuppiluliuma whom was indefinably blocked for using multiple sockpuppets, revert warring, uploading images, making racist comments etc... According to this[36] you already know about it. I would like to point out that his hasn't changed much. He still revert wars, still uploads copyrighted images, almost never uses the talkpage and when he decides to use it, his comments are uncivil. I could pollute this talk page by hundreds if not thousands of diffs of how disruptive this user is. Can you please take a look at his contributions and his talkpage. Thanks VartanM 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey man

Can you keep an eye on History of the Macedonian language too? PS. Hows it going? - Francis Tyers · 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian follies

What I can do, I've done. He has admitted, partly due to my editing blunder, that he is opposed to the guideline and its intention, and he's inserting former Yugoslav into as many frontier articles as he can. I am willing to endorse an RFC, but my Wikistress precludes writing one myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A simple look at my edit history reveals I have been doing nothing of the sort. Stop this misinformation at once. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol again

hello there Future Perfect at Sunrise. we once had a discussion about the topic of Trentino and Merano. You advised me back then to drop the topic, which I have since it was not going anywhere. I have dedicated my time on other topics where I could work in peace. Unfortunately it has recently come to my attention that certain Italian users just simply cannot give the whole thing a rest and have moved South Tyrol to an Italian name with a vote of three users, even though in the previous vote a very clear majority of more than 15 users were in favour of keeping it under the most common English name. I am not asking you to do anything, I just want to point the situation out to you just in case you should notice it. I see myself forced to act in this matter again even though I wished I didn't have to, sorry to say. sincerely Gryffindor 04:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bozen" is an Italian word? Crikey! I've been wrong all these years! and three users you say?! :)) I think this editors advice to you to "drop the topic" might have been excellent long term advice Gryffindor. Considering that the editors involved in the discussions included well-respected administrators and quite a few native German-speaking editors, your accusations of "Italian users" is an attempt to create more ill feelings and smells of racism in fact. I happen to be an American national, born and raised baby! Icsunonove 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A query

Hi, Future Perfect. I have a rather unusual request, and I hope that you can help me. I've researched some stuff about Ion Luca Caragiale, whose origins were Greek. The man believed he had originated in some island, which should be one of the Ionian ones. I only had this info from Romanian sources, who quote him directly saying that he was "an Idriot[e]". I have no clear idea of what the stem word is, but, in Romanian at least, it should be "Idria". This may also mean that the island is named "Hydra" or "Idra" (probably like the island way to the south, but it would be terribly weird if he was talking about that one). So, can you please find out if there is another island by that name or a similar one on Greece's western coast? (It is likely to be a very small one.) I've already asked Yannismarou, but he hasn't answered yet.

The text as I wrote it is all in my sandbox, if you need a closer look. Thank you in advance, and sorry for barging in (I realize this may not be a main priority for you). Best, Dahn 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Hydra is your best bet (Greek: Ὕδρα /iðra/, Ὕδριώτης /iðriótis/.) I can't find anything about another place near the Ionian Islands. Of course, I also don't know what makes you think the Saronic place is implausible? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Romanian sources are very confused when it comes to it: the one source I could find pinpointing a location does so in the most absurd of ways (it says that his family came from, get this, the Slovenian Idrija, and, in the next paragraph, indicates that Caragiale was talking about an island. The thing is that various other sources do not dismiss Cargiale's "Idriote" self-reference, but they go on to say that he was/might have been Albanian/Arvanite (or, in just one case, Aromanian). A Greek source quoted second-hand says that he was actually from Kefalonia. I didn't want to dismiss Hydra outright, but such details make it hard to swallow. Since, at the beginning of this search, I didn't even know that Hydra was also Idr[i]a, I thought I could make sure that there is no other island by that name. Your input doesn't leave room for doubt, so I'll change the link to Hydra, Saronic Islands.

In case you have the time, do you think there is a possibility to see what reputable Greek sources say about his origin? It would be nice to see if there are any additional details that the Romanian sources might have missed. I went through several books, and I milked google books for all it was worth, but just in case.

Thank you. Dahn 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have access to the kind of Greek source that would be likely to contain anything about this guy, right now. I tried checking for a likely Greek spelling of his name but didn't come up with many google hits. Just one thing, Hydra and Arvanites would fit well together, Hydra was an Arvanite stronghold. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, that must be it. Thank you again! Dahn 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

James Kim image

You are being unfair regarding the image James-kim-techtv.jpg. Your initial problem with the image was a fair use rationale. The image has recently been re-uploaded with a completely new fair use rationale which is the exact same rationale that is used for a Wiki featured article Jake Gyllenhaal and the screenshot Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg of Jake in the movie Donnie Darko. Please explain to me how the Jake Gyllenhall image fair use rationale has survived a featured article on the front page of Wikipedia, yet the screenshot of James Kim with the same rationale is still not good enough for you! Provide explanaton please. Rugz 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also point to the page which explains the criteria for using a TV screenshot on Wikipedia. Rugz 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jake Gyllenhaal pic is itself borderline, I'd say. But at least it can be understood as illustrating something significant about the artistic performance of the actor in that movie. There's nothing in the Kim image like that: nothing visual in the way Kim appears, about his style, his clothing, his demeanour, his surroundings etc., is crucial for understanding the article. Why do you expect that same rationales should work across different pictures, when the pictures do different things? The whole point about FU rationales is they should be individual, they should point out why this picture in this article is making such a vital contribution.

The only argument I've heard from you in this respect is you wanted the image as proof he really was on TV in this particular role. That's a highly uncommon rationale for using an image - it means using a primary source for proving a point which you really ought to be attributing to a reliable secondary source, per WP:V. Haven't you got such?

There is no separate page explaining criteria specifically for TV screenshots. It's just about interpreting WP:NFCC, basically.

Please don't re-upload the image again. You were told by at least four administrators it can't be used. You got an IfD, you got a deletion review. You wanted the correct process, now please accept the results. I'd have to block you if you uploaded it again.

By the way, we didn't talk further about that other image in Not From Space. If you really are the copyright owner, then the image is fine, but on the other hand it means your whole role in editing this and related articles may be one of self-promotion, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Please review our conflict-of-interest guidelines, and be prepared that these articles might have to be subjected to some review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The latest rationale which you deleted was correct as per WP:NFC meeting the 10 point test. Did you even read the rationale before you deleted it? The deletion review you mention was for proceedure only and not the content of the image or the rationale. You have stated your reason for deleting the image was for the rationale, not for the image itself. You have not provided reason why this new rationale which meets WP:NFC does not meet your approval. I believe it is fair if someone comes back with an improvement on rationale and tries to meet WP:NFC in good faith that the rationale should be given fair review or even a new nomination for deletion to be reviewed by others, rather than making the lone decision on your own. Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to provide a primary source for the information in the article as i'm not the sole editor or contributor to the article. Below you will find the full rationale which you deleted so that it can be seen fully:

Summary

A screenshot of James Kim on The Screen Savers (2003) on channel techtv. (G4 Media, Inc.)

Fair use for James Kim per WP:NFC

This image, James-kim-techtv.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I, User:Rugz, feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

it is a low resolution copy of a screenshot from a TV show no longer on air or in sydnication;
it does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the TV show in any way; Does not replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
the image is significant because it provides a representation of the subject in action, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
No free equivalent.
Previous publication on YouTube.com.
Is encyclopedic, subject in action at the height of his career on an international TV show.
The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.
Is used in at least one Wiki article.
Location, is used in a Wiki article.
Image description page shows adequate credit and license tag.

Licensing ==

Please state line by line the points which you disagree with. Rugz 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And you would have noticed that I also added a "fair use review" tag which is an option listed WP:NFC in you did not allow to go through process. Why not? You are not assuming good faith. Rugz 08:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This was all adequately covered at the IfD, which was not, as you now claim, purely about the wording of the rationale but also about the substance of the legitimacy of the image. People told you explicitly that "no amount of tweaking the rationale can make this image relevant". If you still don't understand why this is so, sorry, I really can't keep explaining it forever. -- By the way, you never commented on the question of whether IP 64.111.46.44 in that discussion was a sockpuppet of yours. It very much looked like one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You have still not been able to offer refute to any item listed in the 10 point test which meets WP:NFC. The "People" who mentioned "no amount of tweaking" was one editor alone, not more than one. Decisions on wikipedia are based on consensus and fact, not on rage from a lone admin. Please follow process and assume good faith. As for the claims of sockpuppet I am not obligated to defend the claim you have made there, nor explain the actions of other editors. Rugz 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

your message

Got your message, thanks. Sorry, didn't mean to edit war. The original idea was just to update the various subpages with respect to the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page. A particular user doesn't agree with the move so he is trying to roll it back. Anyway.. what's new. :) Icsunonove 08:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Albania

Hi! Rp571976 (talk · contribs) keeps adding certain passage to Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article which is 1. unsourced and 2. part of which repeats what is already written in the article and another part is of questionable significance. After the user had been warned of the WP:3RR the same change was done by an anonymous user. Do you think the checkuser is needed here or this issue could be solved by simpler means? Alæxis_¿question? 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations pages

Naming standards I did bring this up at several places (RfC, Village pump, etc.), with no consensus. There is nothing inherently ungrammatical about (for instance) France-United States relations, although it would probably be more common to speak of American-French relations in the vernacular; assuming bilateral relations were discussed at all. For what it's worth, some standard has to be applied, and the lack thereof on these articles was irritating me. If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Old discussions Honestly, I have no idea where they are; they probably happened last October. If you really want me to search around, I suppose I could, but I don't have any better leads than you do. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response

Prior to re-naming, there were variations like (these are from memory, so bear with me): U.S.-Pakistan relations, Iran-Palestine Relations, Franco-Russian relations, Colombia-United States military relations, Kazakhstan-United Kingdom relations, and Anglo-Spanish relations. It's certainly not desirable to have such a variety of naming standards (including some that actually contradict existing standards, such as the arbitrary caps in Iran-Palestine relations.) Also, some of them used names other than the title of the main article (e.g. U.S.-Pakistan relations, rather than United States-Pakistan relations, since U.S. redirects to United States.) As far as the priority given to renaming, I suppose it is pretty low since no one else did it. I agree that it's not exactly critical, but no one was doing it and the problem was only getting compounded. Your argument about the existence of Latinate roots as a historical accident is exactly one that I would use: not every state has a Latinate root (e.g. Sino-, Franco-), so they should not be used. If they are used, then the naming is capricious and unpredictable.
I'm not married to the form "X-Y relations" per se, but I am hesitant to use the "Xian-Yian relations" form for a few reasons. The first is the one mentioned above. The second is the ambiguity of using the adjective forms. To use an example that you gave, does Sino-Franco relations (or is it "Franco-Sino relations?"), mean relations between the French state and the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China? For neutrality's sake, we need to disambiguate between the two Chinese states. "Sino-Xian relations" does not. See also "Congolese." Does "Congolese-Angolan relations" (or is it "Angolan-Congolese relations?") refer to the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Etc., etc. Regarding the Google test, that is useful for naming many articles, but certain standards prevail in other arenas. If Google shows an overwhelming preference for "Moroccan demographics" over "Demographics of Morocco" but the standard is to use "X of Y state" so that is what is in practice. For instance, you gave the examples of "U.S. laws" whereas that article is actually titled "Law of the United States." I agree that "American law" is probably more common and even more palatable, but it's not the preferred name for that reason. So, the form "X-Y relations" solves that issue, but so do other compounds, such as "Bilateral relations of X and Y" for instance.
While I respect your disagreement, reverting to a bunch of arbitrarily-named articles is in no one's interest, as best as I can tell. Why would it be more desirable to have a series of randomly-named articles on the same topic? I would be happy to comply with your request, as it is reasonable and I've already made all the moves I planned on making. That having been said, I still think there should be a standard, and this is still the best one that I can figure. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Images tagged for deletion

That's the thing, WP:NFCC is a very confusing policy open to many different interpretations. This image, for example, [37], comes from one of the movies listed at Mamuka Kikaleishvili, namely "The Life of Don Quixote and Sancho" (Tskhovreba Don Kikhotisa da Sancho Panchosi), also appears at a non-Wikipedia page [38]. I could not see how it violates any of the 10 conditions of WP:NFCC. What would be the rationale, or example, to follow in uploading such image? Thanks. Atabek 14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I tried to modify the summary on this one [39] and provide a fair use rationale. Would this suffice to keep the image? Thanks. Atabek 16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad that one is OK now. Here is the summary update with non-Wikipedia source and fair use rationale for the next one [40]. Would I have to notify you for every image summary update, or there is some procedure tag that I can insert for that? Thanks. Atabek 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, could you remove the tag from this one [41], as we talked about it before and fair use rationale was added. Also this is an image of an actor in the movie, made in 1925 [42]. Does this fall under copyright? I can still update it with fair use rationale information, but just needed to check on that. Thanks. Atabek 22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

redirect scorching

Interesting....tell me more about this? It's not a term I am familiar with, nor do I understand how it works or why it is bad. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the explanation is slightly WP:BEANSy. But okay, here goes. The term is my own, by the way. It's a dirty trick for getting the upper hand in a move war, by technically preventing your opponent from moving a page back where you don't want it. You go to the redirect page at the place you want to block, and make some dummy edit to the redirect code, like first removing the "#" and then adding it back ([43], [44]). That way, the page will have a "non-trivial edit history", and thus your opponent (assuming he isn't an admin) will be unable to move the article over it.

The Arbcom precedent where this was listed as one aggravating factor in somebody's disruptive behaviour is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#AndriyK's crusade.

If you're tactically clever, you will perform this trick during a phase where the move war is building up heat. That way, you can escalate the move war and provoke your opponent into doing something even more disruptive out of frustration, on finding they've been duped -- like for instance, moving the page back per copy-and-paste, or moving it to some third, nonsensical WP:POINT location just so as to get it away from where you want it. This way, if you're lucky, you get your opponent blocked for disruption and can easily get an admin to move the page back where you want it and protect it there.

Believe me, I've known edit-warriors who were tactical geniusses in this game.... Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't move pages often at all, so forgive my questioning here. Let me see if I got this right: If you and I are in a move war, and I don't like you moving Sunrise to Sunset...I could make a random edit to Sunset and that would prevent you from moving Sunrise to Sunset on top of the edit (assuming you weren't an admin)?

Yep, correct. (sorry for interspersing my comments within yours here.)

Going back to you actually being an admin though, if you were wanting to undo this, you would simply delete Sunset, make the move, and then selectively undelete whichever versions you wanted, yes?

Yep, correct.

I'm also not sure how it really escalates the move war, rather than simply ending it....is your POINT suggestion saying "If you really want to fight it, move Sunset to Nighttime, and then move[[Sunrise over to the now empty Sunset?"

Nice try, that's what I'd probably do as my second or third attempt. But it won't work either. Mwuahahahaha. Because after my move, Sunset now redirects to Nighttime. I can move Sunrise to Sunset only over a redirect from Sunset that actually points back to Sunrise. Gotcha.

Before I'd try this, I will most likely have tried the following:

Copy-and-paste the contents from Sunrise to Sunset. Of course, you'll paste them back, citing the policy that copy-and-paste moves are illegal. You win, by demonstrating your superior knowledge of wiki policy, and I have lost points towards breaking 3RR.

Then I'd probably start moving Sunrise first to SUnset, Sunset2, The time when the sun goes down, Some time between when the sun is in the sky and when it isn't, and Lemme just have anything except that stupid Sunrise. Each time, you report me to an admin for disruption.

By the time I've finished, all admins will have got mad at me, I'm blocked, they move the page back to Sunrise (where you wanted it from the beginning, see how right you were? Mwuahahaha), and move-protect it there.

You can tell from the above confusion that I rarely ever move pages. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucky you. My description of a typical move war above is only very very slightly exaggerated. :) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit this is tactical. But wait, why would you make all those disruptive moves KNOWING it would get you blocked? Isn't that counter productive? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why would an edit-warrior edit-war, KNOWING it will get him blocked? Isn't that counter productive too? Funny thing is, they do it all the time... But of course, in this scenario above, you were supposed to be the professional move-warring tactician, I'm just the average, easy-to-manipulate POV-pusher helpless against my own anger... Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Got a couple points to make. :-) You said that the voting on the PofB-B page was "dubious". Is that really fair to say? The only voting we had was to sort out what Province of BZ title to use, overall the discussions involved a good dozen+ editors (italian nationals, german nationals, english, american, canadian, etc. along with a few admins). The point was to move forward from the current impasse. We really worked hard to come up with a neutral solution that the most people could be happy with. That was the idea of the split off of the history section and to focus the current page on the present-day province under the English usage referenced through Brittanica. Saying dubious somehow insinuates that we did something unethical; and we've already had to have enough of the ranting from Gryffindor and PhJ. Second, you said "South Tyrol" (as the traditional name of the historical region)". The name Tyrol is historic in the context of the old County of Tyrol. The term "South Tyrol" however isn't anymore historic than the official name of Province of Bolzano/Bozen. They are both terms that came out of the early 20th century. Anyway. Icsunonove 20:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued vandalism

There is a new IP vandalizing Clement of Ohrid, also from Skopje. Mr. Neutron 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet another... Mr. Neutron 20:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement on request for arbitration

Hi, Future Perfect. This is in response to your statement on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Liancourt_Rocks_disputes. While I agree that this page seems to have an issue with keeping discussions on topic and seeking consensus, I feel that a topic ban on all sides is not an appropriate response. I am a newcomer to the topic but I already sense a pattern of "disruptiveness" which varies considerably from one editor to another and I feel that many editors, myself included, contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner. Perhaps Arbcom can come up with an alternative solution; or maybe another dispute resolution process would be beneficial (I am not familiar with "userRFC" which has been suggested but if it is what I think it is then maybe that might be helpful) but I don't think a topic ban on all sides would be the most appropriate. Phonemonkey 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't mean to suggest banning everybody involved there. I suggested that some people, but from both sides, might need to be banned. It would be for the Arbcom to determine who are the worst candidates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image in Olynthus

Hello, I must admit I wasn't very sure about the picture anyway, I will removed it, if you could tell me how. I will try to create a plan on my one, using some kind of programme. Some other city plans are made as svg files, like in Nikopolis, so I searched through Internet and I found a programme called inkscape, which I think will do the job.I am downloading right now, thanks for the help.

Kapnisma ? 08:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would take the requests from User: Mr. Neutron with a grain of salt

He is currently engaged in edit warring on number of articles, all of them concerned with history of Macedonia, and his pro-Bulgarian perspective of it. He is abusing his better knowledge of wikipedia to impose his ways on many less wikipedia-adept users. I am currently researching what can be done towards abusers like him. Just my 2c. Capricornis 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you refer to undoing simple vandalism and various other violations. Mr. Neutron 17:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for monitoring all my contribs in real-time, it flatters me. As for the above, I said what I had to, for the rest I will leave the User: Future Perfect at Sunrise to be the judge, if he has the spare time to check your contrib history sometime. Capricornis 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that reading especially though the talk of Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising and your contributions to my talk page reveal that you constantly troll, harass, call other people names etc, childish edits like this, etc without the slightest desire to colaborate in a good atmosphere. Mr. Neutron 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When I told you to please leave each other's talk pages alone, I didn't mean for you to continue your squabbles on mine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Peachoid update

I think you locked this page while I was in the midst of updating the coordinates. Can you please change the template to {{coor title dms|35|5|43|N|81|41|9|W}} when you get the chance. If not, please let me know when this is no longer protected and I will do it myself. Burntsauce 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi! Id like to note the last reverts of user Francis Tyers [[45]] and [[46]]. It seems to be an edit war without any serious explanations. Please could you have a look at that reverts? Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 21:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

no probs

the native language talk was more about obstinacy of certain people than the article itself :) The name "Ilinded Uprising" was the original one, and was POV moved to the present version which is virtually used only in Bulgaria, and primarily for their 'greater bulgarian' causes. I am initiating arbitration on this at the 24th hour, as User: Mr. Neutron just stops responding when the things don't go his way. -cheers Capricornis 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer mediation too, but the problem is that both parties need to voluntary accept mediation according to wikipedia, and the other guy just goes silent when I propose formal mediation, since he knows he's gonna lose. I need something binding and compulsory, not depending on the will of he participants, and the only thing I've found so far in wikipedia is arbitration. Capricornis 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in merging the articles relating to Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising. I tried to do something similar but since I am not an admin, I just did it by providing pointers. Regarding the archives; I set up Archive 1 and 2, with 1 being a straight transclude from the other discussion page you have now merged. This means there was actually no need to add the old talk page to the archives; it was already there as Archive 1. I've removed it from the archive box, and updating Archive 1 to transclude from the new location of the old discussion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I hadn't noticed the old talk archive was already there. Good job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try to avoid speaking in Macedonian on the talk pages. cheersMatriX 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting expressions

Some interesting expressions by Capricornis and INkubusse, posted on User talk:MatriX in Macedonian language:

"овие татаро-монголите" - "those Tatars-Mongols", common racist stigmatization of Bulgarians among extreme ethnic Macedonian nationalists, about several Bulgarian users on Wikipedia.
"глупави бугарски фалсификати" - "stupid Bulgarian falsifications", about documents created by Yane Sandanski and his faction.
"жими мадињава" - something disgusting connected with testicles, probably about the same Bulgarian users.
"оној апсурден српски идиот" - "that absurd Serbian idiot", about Serbian writer Branislav Nusic.
"да му е**м" - "fuck it".

I wonder is it a civilized language regarding other editors in Wikipedia? Greetings, Jackanapes 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind if they insult historical figures outside wikipedia, but "Tatar-Mongols", if directed at fellow wikipedians, is of course a severe ethnic slur and shouldn't be tolerated. But Capricornis has already promised to stop posting in Macedonian, so I hope he'll pull himself together in the future. That said, could you please avoid going back repeatedly to copyedit your writing when posting to people's talk pages, it's a bit annoying to have the yellow flag come up every few minutes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole sentence is "сега уште насловот остана, оти овие татаро-монголите не го даваат лесно", which means "now, the title remaines yet, because those Tatars-Mongols don't give it easy", about the title of the article Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising. Of course, I'll try to fulfil your request. - Jackanapes 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't pay much attention what the people are doing on their talk pages, but there is a similar behavior from some editors from the "opposite" site: Jingby :Todor, the articles about Uhrana and National Liberation War of Macedonia are in bad situation because of anonymous Fyromians…[47]; Lantonov: And you will be blocked out of existance forever. You are spiting on your face, you awful Serbian…(I don’t know what “мекере” means in Bulgarian?) [48]; Lantonov: Go hide in a hole, you stupid blocked jerk without a fatherland, ashamed of your ancestry. I don't have any more time for you…. [49]. I hope everyone would refrain from such insulting comments... MatriX 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that all kinds of vulgar language and aggressive nationalist behaviour regardless of origin or particular partialities of their authors must not be tolerated. This indisputable requirement concerns constant reverts of well referenced materials as well. - Jackanapes 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Future Perfect at Sunrise (hell of a name hehe :P) and all the others. I'm sorry about the native language talk, but I thought it was ok since it's on a talkpage of a user that speaks the same language. About the... I don't know how to call the "translations" by Jackanapes (or Mr. Neutron... I really don't know anymore, they're/he's everywhere), I must refer to it as a pathetic, childish cry. Step by step:

"татаро-монголите' - today's modern Bulgarian nation has roots from the Tatars, which are closely related to the Mongols. The official Bulgarian history confirms this; their history in Europe starts from Kuber and Asparukh (you can check this wherever you want). The point: "common racist stigmatization of Bulgarians among extreme ethnic Macedonian nationalists" is something Jackanapes should be very ashamed of. Not only extreme ethnic Macedonian nationalists, but every Macedonian (and the others of course) sometimes refers to the Bulgars as to Tatars. If they're ashamed of being of Tatar ancestry, it's their own mental problem.
"глупави бугарски фалсификати" - ("stupid Bulgarian falsifications") is NOT what we see as the documents created by Jane Sandanski and his faction, but the Bulgarian fabrications made with political intentions. I don't know why anyone should be offended. In fact, everything we (Macedonians) think and everything we do is called "brainwashed" and "Titoistic" by the Bulgarians. That really hurts my feelings, because I don't believe that Tito brainwashed me so that I can reject my Bulgarinnes.
"жими мадињава" - no testicles, no Bulgarian users! It's a common Macedonian expression about something we don't believe is true (whatsoever). The accusation that I (it was me who wrote it) called some Bulgarian users "testicles", is not very kind as well.
"оној апсурден српски идиот" - "that absurd Serbian idiot" about Serbian writer Branislav Nusic - true, true. I think he's an idiot and he's by no means someone whose writings can tell us the ethnicity of Jane Sandanski. He could easily just write anything he wanted to, it doesn't mean that Jane felt that way. Again, I don't know why Jackanapes finds it inappropriate.
"да му е**м" - it doesn't mean "fuck it", but "******", since it contains two "*" chars. Even if it did, I'm getting overemotional sometimes, we all have our moments, and please notice the two "*" chars!! They mean something!! But Jackanapes USED it against me in a very childish manner. I'm sure he thinks that by proving to you that we (so called "Bulgarians with no Bulgarian ethnic feelings" by them) are uncivilized vandals, he also proves you that Jane considered him as a Bulgarian.(?!)

In the end, I wonder (just like Jackanapes wondered) if it is appropriate to spread bad things about me around. This is not the first time. They've already done it and they keep doing it, day and night. I bet they're paid to do it, cuz I can't defend myself 24/7, I have real life though. Once again, sorry about the Macedonian talk and whenever it happens in the future, feel free to ask me what it means, so that Jackanapes and Neutron can get some rest. Cheers --INkubusse 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't care much about the rest, but the "Tatar-Mongol" thing is way beyond the pale. Seriously, don't ever do it again. Don't use ethnic slurs to refer to fellow Wikipedians. Simple, really, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it really isn't a slur expression. It's their history, why would it be offensive? The Tatars still live in Tatarstan, Chuvashia, Bulgaria and many other countries (YES, some people in Bulgaria still feel like Tatars) and they aren't some aliens you know, they're just a descent nation. There's a nationalistic movement in Tatarstan whose goals are returning the nation's old name: Bulgars. You can ask some Bulgarian or read somewhere on the net or in a book, when the history of the Bulgarian nation in Europe starts! I'm trying to explain that THEY aren't ashamed of their ancestry (why would they be, the Tatars were great warriors) and they don't find themselves offended by that. By the way, if they ARE offended by the Mongol part or something else, I'll give them my apologies when they apologise about the following:

the slaughter of the Slavs by the Bulgars in Byzantine time;
the sabotage of every Macedonian uprising by the Bulgarian IMRO parties and claiming Macedonia's history;
the bestial slaughter of the 12 children in Vatasha, Kavadarci in WWII;
about terrorizing my own grandma (in WWII)!
and about calling us Bulgarians and persuading everyone else that we are Bulgarians.

Then I will say I'm sorry. You see, I'm a victim here too, not only them. They use various terms to describe my nation and THAT is an ethnic slur. I hope you don't get me wrong, honestly. I'm just trying to explain you in what relations our two different nations are. --INkubusse 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia is not about ethnicities weighing up their mutual grievances against each other. Nobody cares whether your ancestors were victims of whoever. What we care about is that you play your part in establishing a cordial, collegial atmosphere of collaboration with your fellow wikipedians, no matter of what nationality. You will please be so kind as to call your fellow editors by the normal, neutral names that they wish to be called by and that every other polite and decent person calls them by. These guys are Bulgarians, so that's what you will please call them. (I'll in turn watch out that others don't call you a FYROMian, Pseudoskopian or whatever.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You got it all the wrong way, unfortunately. At first, I was trying not to discuss about anyone's ethnicity or anyone's hatred and not to get in conflicts. I know the principles of Wikipedia and I strongly support the way it works, trying to find the best and most NPOV solution about every article, with mutual help. If you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that it all started when I suggested a more NPOV about Jane Sandanski. The article stated that '..he is considered an ethnic Macedonian by a minority of historians in the Republic of Macedonia..'. I was simply stunned! I changed it so it was '..he is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia..'. Then, Mr. Neutron (whose personality should also be discussed), made a few rv's, calling me a vandal I believe, although I explained in the talk page. Then I thought it would be also FAR MORE NPOV if the article started like this ' ..was a revolutionary from Macedonia (as a region). He is considered a Bulgarian in Bulgaria and a Macedonian in Macedonia.. '. Till this day, I'm convinced that it's the best NPOV solution, but our fellow Wikipedians (who accidentally all come from Bulgaria) don't allow that because of their 'SOURCE' (which is, of course, the absolute truth, confirmed by God himself, right?). All the accusations by Mr. Neutron, Jackanapes, and the others, are OUTRAGEOUS, in my opinion though. I follow the discussion on the Sandanski talk page, and everywhere else, I analyzed their strategy and I'm starting to get really upset. And YES, it's a strategy. It's a well-thought plan, they're something like an organisation and their goal is to kick us (you know who us is) out of Wikipedia, so that they can shape all the articles regarding Macedonia's history by their views or history. If you don't see it, then I have a very serious problem. I even feel endangered. I know you'll say to me something like you're being ridiculous again, you're paranoic.. or something, but I'll give my best to open your eyes. I'm not here to spread propaganda, I'm here to contribute to the world of knowledge!. All I wanted (and I still want it) is to bring the article about Jane Sandanski to a more NeutralPointOfView (regarding the starting of the article). I assure you, I will refrain from open conflicts and I will fall back from those disputes, the moment when you guarantee the NPOVness of that article. The thing that I cannot do, is to make Mr. Neutron (and his friends or sock-puppets, I don't know) STOP encouraging you (and the other nonbalkan wikipedians) to see US as uncivilized, maybe stupid and to make you believe that WE are doing organized edits or such. OH PLEASE, we are but simple people who love editing Wikipedia, but we are very upset about the POV pushing. We don't edit every day, we don't make plans, we don't even have time to read all the false accusation from Mr. Neutron and the others. I also think that the other Macedonians here don't even know what's going on! I don't know how to emphasize this enough, but Mr. Neutron and his friends HAVE TO STOP with that they're doing (I'm reffering to the accusations). I was really, really, really upset about what I read here. They seem to be reporting everything we say and interpret to you in a reeeaealy bad way. Those are some serious accusations, that we are some organized group or something (in fact, I think that THEY are the organized group, but I don't have the time and the nerves to catch ALL their conversations - like they do). Think about what I've said and remember that I don't want to get into any kind of conflicts with anyone, I don't want to offend anyone, I only want the NPOView in the Sandanski article. INkubusse 02:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Might I also suggest that you shorten your talk page, my browser goes mad sometimes :D INkubusse 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To make the picture complete, take a look at this "fine" edit of INkubusses, talking on the IP page of the ban-evading User:Frightner: [50].

I dont know if you will read this... I look at the entire situation with National Liberation War of Macefdonia, and then your ban. I dont know what to say, I got pretty irritated (and sweaty), I am angry, I HATE THEM! Damn vulgars, f**k them off! I notice you have great capacity (and knowledge) and that you talk (write) well, nice, argumentative, on talk pages... But obviously you cannot do it alone against those bastards. They are like cockroaches, damned wolves! Three or four are together and spread vile plague, I gradually analyzed how your banning came to be. Just because of little cursing? Something must be done against those disgusting bastards. I suggest you make a new user page, have a different name, do not introduce yourself as you did before (I see you have a dynamic IP), and go on with your work. F**k their m****r, just watch calmly, with arguments, dont start cursing, irritate them in a civil way, and from now, I will be inserting Macedonian pages as sources (just like they do with promacedonia.com). Big greets from brother Macedonian!

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility are obviously broken. Also advice is given to break Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Mr. Neutron 04:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I don't know what to say, you really got the criminal! Now read my rights and arrest me, kk? I don't see anything wrong with that message, and in fact, I think you can see my anger, my frustration, about what you're doing. You can notice that I wrote I gradually analyzed how your banning came to be and NOW I'm analyzing how you're trying to ban me! What are you? Hitler and the NSDAP, trying to ban all the others, in a legal way?! I have nothing more to say, except that you won't be seeing any cursing, native talk (or such) from me! INkubusse 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, oh, oh, I almost forgot: Also advice is given to break Sockpuppetry. Creating another user account for good reasons, if the previous one was blocked, is not sockpuppetry, since I advised him to stay civilized, not to curse, not to break any rules. You can ban a USER from Wikipedia, but you can't ban a PERSON! And how many times to I have to BEG you not to follow me! I'll sue you dude, you're sth like a maniac! :D INkubusse 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to "read your rights" (you have none anyway :-P). I think I'll rather show you the instruments right away. No, seriously. You talk of fellow contributors as "bastards", "cockroaches", "spreading vile plague", "disgusting bastards", you invoke Godwin's Law, and you find nothing wrong with all that? Oh, and about the sockpuppetry: yes, a Ban is supposed to apply to the person. Sockpuppetry to evade a ban is regarded as a serious offence here, and somebody helping or exhortating another to do so would be pretty serious too. I'm not a big friend of handing out blocks for once-off attacks made in anger, but this is really a last warning to you. You really really need to change your attitude, or you have no place here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'll sue you dude, you're sth like a maniac!" Future Perfect, this is a clear legal threat. Shall I post it on the notice board, or will you deal with it yourself? Mr. Neutron 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reality check. Saying "I'll sue you dude" to a person whose real name and location you have no means of finding out, and without any indication as to what you're going to sue them over, is about as real a legal threat as saying "I'll hit you over the head with a wet bus ticket!" to somebody who lives on another planet is a plausible threat of physical harm. By the way, neutrons are subject to the uncertainty principle, which makes them exceedingly difficult to drag into court. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow again. Thanks for telling me my rights, but I already knew them (none). Now Mr. Future Perfect at Sunrise, can you realise what I was talking about when I said that Neutron is trying to get me banned? I'm seriouos. Well, even if he does, I strongly believe in sanity! I will have to apologize to you and the others about those expressions of mine, now I see that your policy is very strict about them, I really didn't know you get that too serious. Since you're a reasonable person (and understand that it happened in a state of rage), I believe you'll accept the apologies. But I don't like the fact that you're leaning on Neutron's side. You should judge solemnly with no feelings for anyone, but your attitude seems a bit unfriendly (knowing that I apologised). I'm not saying that you're taking sides, but I can feel the presence of ill will. Well, after all, I guess Neutron proved his point and met one of his goals.

About the "suing", I don't know if you're kidding or not... Just to inform you, that was a pure joke, I'm not THAT stupid to think of suing :O !! And I think you were making fun of me Fut. Perf., although you didn't realise that I wasn't serious. Do you think that's ok? My feelings are a bit hurt (I'm sensitive), but if you think it's ok, then it's fine. And to Mr. Neutron: NO, THAT IS NOT A THREAT, YOU'RE THE THREAT!!! That should've been understood like I AM AFRAID OF YOU, not vice-versa. JESUS CHRIST, you actually asked Future Perfect to DEAL with it!(?!) O-M-G! ..... ...

Once again, you won't find any "illegal" activities from my side in the future, Future Perfect. I'm looking forward to future collaboration. INkubusse 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you say is honest at all. Observe, you do have a very offensive userbox right on top of your user page in the Macedonian wikipedia: "This user hates vulgarians and Greeks from the bottom of his soul, more than anything in the world, more than anything one can imagine". And you are are kind enough to put an interwiki on your English userpage to it. Mr. Neutron 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply, that doesn't concern you. It doesn't say that the user hates the Bulgarians and Greeks, but 'vulgari' and 'garci', that's on purpose. It was meant to be only temporary, and if you feel uneasy, I'll gladly remove it! It's gone now. It's up to you to believe in my honesty, but I think that I apologised about the tasteless expressions and made a promise. Now if you'll excuse me, I will ask you to leave me alone, there are people here called administrators who take care. Note: they won't need your translations, they will get them from ME (if needed). Thank you. INkubusse 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well, please erase the passage about the "tyranoid despots, canibal homosexual non-humans, Satan's right hands, genocide-fascist black Roma, living south of my land", which links to the article about Greeks at the Macedonian wiki. Mr. Neutron 01:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I almost feel guilty to adding more stuff to FPaS's talk page, as the poor thing doesn't deserve this torture, but I couldn't help it (after laughing for a while - can you tell wikipedia became my main source of text funnies, replacing craigslist's 'Best of').

To INukbusse: just stop explaining yourself and chill. No one can ban you for now, despite Mr. Neutrons best efforts, but don't do things like that anymore.

To Mr. Neutron: you should do reality checks more often, and for G.O.D.'s sake stop doing a full text search on the keyword Macedonia and editing all the articles to your liking. Don't you have any other interests?

To myself: stop spending so much time on wikipedia and go to the sauna finally! :)) Capricornis 01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, true... One more thing - To FPaS: please, please shorten your talkpage :( INkubusse 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus for MOS articles is a defined process that MOSMAC has gone through. Concensus does not mean that if you, personally, disagree, a months-old process can be reverted and go back to proposed. Please adhere to the process for proposing and making changes. Regards, sys < in 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am making the simple, factual observation that several of the principal authors of the guideline evidently no longer agree (or have never agreed) about what their text is supposed to mean. Thus, the claim that the guideline represents "consensus" is demonstrably false. Do you disagree with this factual observation? There is also evident lack of consensus in the practical application of the guideline. If you think your edit to Greeks was in line with the guideline as currently stated, then either you were personally blatantly mistaken (which I think was the case), or the guideline is so vague or self-contradictory that, again, calling it consensus would be nonsensical. By the way, WP:BOLD applies to policy texts too, so please don't blindly revert me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Strich3d

Can you do something about this guy? For the past three and a half months he has been constantly edit warring, erasing sources, harassing people, etc, with absolutely no discussion, as the logs reveal. Mr. Neutron 17:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching the situation. We were discussing some aspects of this whole BUL-MAC fracas on Talk:Yane Sandanski just today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma/Flavius Belisarius 2

I believe you made a huge mistake by allowing him to stay. The user has been very disruptive, removed sourced information, edit warred and insulted others. Here is his latest "constructive, good faith edit" [51]. I can provide dozens more. Looking forward for your answer. --VartanM 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, the initial statement is not incorrect, Turkey does not take Armenia very seriously, the conclusion is wrong, as Turkey takes Armenian Genocide issue kinda seriously. Also, it should not be about Turkey's stance about issues, that is not an article on a Turkish government website. Your suggestion of him being a sockpuppeteer (with the title) fails AGF as well, unless s/he is proven to be so. Anyway, I did not come here for this.Future Perfect at Sunrise, I came here for 84.58.177.136's comment here. The issue is not whether what s/he says is true or not. I personally did not co-edit with Tajik as far as I remember, but I co-edited with many who were claimed to be Tajik, who seemed to be 'related' to each other. Also I have made some searches based on their edits out of my interest (hope this is not something 'bad' to do), and landed in wiki-websites dealing with Tajik. I do have the belief that they are meat/sock puppets of Tajik, though this belief is not based on completely solid grounds, also possibly since I am someone who has some memory/concentration-related problems. As a personal acquaintance of these people, can you please comment on this issue, as much as you want? Thanks a lot. Deniz^T_C 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To Vartan: it would have been more helpful if you'd documented the revert-warring rather than a single edit (administrative intervention won't be about the contents of the edit), but yes, the revert-warring is of course unacceptable. I've blocked for a longish while and warned him the indef ban might be reinstated next time.

To Denizz: the 84.58.* IPs are quite likely Tajik himself, although it can't be proven because it's a large internet provider with dynamic addresses. Some of the named sock accounts probably were also Tajik, but others weren't ("Tajik-Professor", for instance, wasn't him, I'm pretty sure of that.) I actually don't know him in real life, but used to e-mail with him, trying to help him when I felt that at least some of the sock allegations were probably wrong. But right now there's really nothing much that can or should be done about him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that he's safely blocked, would you care to restore the passage on Turkey's relations with Armenia? He wrote most of it himself, but then decided he'd remove it entirely to spite the Armenians he'd been edit-warring with. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Evil grin... So, you want me to do it so that you won't have to break 3RR yourself over it? But I haven't been an editor on that page and don't know the article. Don't worry, if there's consensus for its inclusion, someone will go and reinstate it... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll do it myself later on. In the meantime, there are the more pressing concerns of a Saturday night to attend to. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, see here[52]. Thanks for the quick response Fut.Perf.I understand you were on vacation the first time around. VartanM 16:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of caution. I think my thoughts on this editor are made pretty clear in Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Shuppiluliuma, however, I really let this get the better of me at the time. To the point that it helped torpedo my own RfA back in June: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hiberniantears. I suspect we'll seem him pop up again, and that he will be equally problematic. That said, after my RfA, I really made an effort to figure out why Future, and some others were OK with Shup continuing. I discovered that you can actually work with him, even though it means you have to ignore his outbursts. Engaging him on the talk pages works, but only so long as you don't lose your cool in the face of his antagonism. I've never been given a satisfactory reason for tolerating his civility issues, but I have learned to work pretty well with Shup nonetheless. Look at my August 8th edits to Ottoman Empire to see me working constructively with him even while he is being abusive. Whether he comes back as Flavius in a couple of weeks, or as someone new in the near future, I would urge us all to learn from my mistakes (and how they hurt me) in considering how to work with him. Hiberniantears 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll Also add that I'm not sure why Shup's comments (editing obviously as anon IP 151.37.185.175 from Italy, as all his other edits are from) following my last comment were reverted. If the rest of us have to put up with him while trying to work constructively in articles, I do not see why his comments should be removed from here when they are considerably less absurd than what is normally posted by him on our personal talk pages, on article talk pages, and in edit summaries. I don't support him, but I don't understand the double standard that exists around him either. If some kind of explanation could be offered, I would be greatly appreciative. My intention is not to be in any way bitter, but this is something that has troubled me for some time. Personally, I wish to be an administrator, and I want to understand why multiple administrators turned a cheek with this editor while in full knowledge of who he was, so that I can learn the actual policies, or guidelines followed in this instance. Many thanks! Hiberniantears 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Hiberniantears, for your thoughts. I very much appreciate your willingness to collaborate despite the difficulties. And I'll admit my own performance in dealing with him was probably less than totally consistent. I'll be frank: I was simply tired of him at certain times. Didn't have the energy tackling more of his revenge sockpuppeting sprees. This one, I cut short with the radical measure of a range block. I guess I cut off half of Italy from Wikipedia for a few hours, but heck, who cares. Hope I won't have to be doing that too often yet. -- As for the reverting, there's actually a simple policy, you can revert him on anything he does while blocked. I just felt my talkpage was filling up with too much junk too quickly. (Look at some of the surrounding threads to see what's been going on here!) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Using native language, Mac-Bulg feud, etc, etc :)

FPaS: By using macedonian yet again, I tried to convey a clearer specific message to my fellow Macedonians than I could have done in english. As the always-helpful User: Laveol translated, there was no discussion about any article in it, which was the specific I previously conveyed to you I would adhere to, out of respect for the people who don't understand the language. I am not aware of any wikipedia rule or policy that prevents me or anyone from communicating in any language other than english, ESPECIALLY on other users' personal talk pages. You could have just as well asked me to translate it for you, or used the several macedonian-english web translator available - I would have been glad to oblige, and you could have asked for another version from the always-helpful, always-ready User: Laveol -cheers Capricornis 03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Some users are using an official greek symbol to describe their nationality. Note that this symbol has been officially declared in World Intellectual Property Organization as greek one [53],[54],[55] you are an administrator and I feel that you should advice this user to remove it and replace it with the flag of his country. If not, please tell me were to address for this violation. Kapnisma ? 13:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No way. As far as I am concerned, people can use emblems on Wikipedia in whatever way they like. If the Greek state, the alleged holder of those intellectual rights, wishes to challenge Revizionist's usage of it, they can contact the Wikimedia Foundation. If those rights validly exist, that is, because I don't really see how they possibly could, given the usage of the symbol by ethnic Macedonians pre-dates the attempted registration by the Greek authorities. And I don't see in how far the registration with the WIPO constitutes any degree of authoritative endorsement of that claim by anybody - for all I know, it's just an arbitrary claim without substance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Hah, this is fun. I actually looked it up. That WIPO registration is only supposed to ban the unauthorised adoption of state symbols as trademarks by other parties. [56]:

"Pursuant to Article 6ter, Members of either or both the Paris Union and the WTO shall refuse or invalidate the registration, and prohibit by appropriate measures the use, without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks, of armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems of these Members, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view."

So, just forget about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the place I recommended Revizionist move it to; I was going to wait and see if he did (or if he asked for help on how to) before acting further. But thanks anyway! :) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the Ethnic Macedonian userbox to its proper place: Template:User Ethnic Macedonian. I was really wondering how and where it should be placed. Thank you very much and I wish you a nice weekend. Revizionist 18:07, 08 September 2007 (UTC)

I see, as I have stated before I am not interested in nationalistic edit wars, I would only like to stress out to you that the use of a symbol that some years ago leaded to an effusion of nationalism will only mathematically do the same here. Specially, when it is not used by the other state, under a compromise brokered by the United Nations, but as the wikipedia article states Outside of the Republic of Macedonia, some nationalist groups continue to use the Vergina Sun as a symbol of Macedonia's Slavs, despite the change in the Republic of Macedonia's flag. When there is already a flag and you choose to use a symbol with special weight, be sure what the result will be. Kapnisma ? 17:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kapnisma. I also am not interested in edit "wars" as you said. I believe in civilised discussions and gentleman behaviour (I consider you as a gentleman too). The userbox I made is the unofficial symbol of ethnic Macedonians. The state symbol is different from the ethnic symbol. Greek Macedonian symbol is a golden sun on a blue background. Ethnic Macedonian symbol is a golden sun on a red background. See [Symbol of Ethnic Macedonians]. P.S. I included some new information on the name dispute (Macedonia_naming_dispute#New_evidence), that I think you will agree are fair and that there will be no edit "wars" connected with them. Revizionist 21:42, 08 September 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼, thank you very much. I know that you are very busy, but I would appreciate if you separate even a small part of your time to through a look at Macedonia_naming_dispute#New_evidence to be shore that there are no violations or vandalizing of the article. Revizionist 00:59, 09 September 2007 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference srbet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ [57]

[srbet-1] Cite error: The named reference srbet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] [57]

[1]

[2]