User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Sock

Please block [1]. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. Also, Darkness Shine's IP is still active [2] [3] Mar4d (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one [4]. Sorry to bother you, socks have a particular attraction to me. Mar4d (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

AN closure

Hi FP, I asked a question but it got sidetracked by Bernstein's soapbox. I've still not got an answer. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't an ad hominem - it was a statement of fact. You've seen his comments. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have. That doesn't change the fact that your comment was deeply unconstructive. You two need to disengage from each other. I was very glad to see you addressing some article quality issues at that page; please continue doing that, don't get dragged further into the interpersonal conflicts. You are better than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Interpersonal conflicts? I should email you a couple of screencaps of off-wiki comments that demonstrate the hypocrisy of what is being said. We're being played like a fiddle. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk subpage

Just an FYI but User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/rangeblock.js is around. I don't want to open up a WP:BEANS issue though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ban appeal

Hi,

I appealed my topic ban (diff). Taking in consideration that we were involved in disputes in past and that you supported my ban and/or was against its lifting I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hello, you have topic banned TripWire from India-Pakistan conflict and Pakistani politics articles some time back. But he is violating topic ban several times. For example this edit, this edit, this edit. I have given him several warnings, notices, cautions already when he violated topic ban in his initial stages of ban, for example this notice, this one too. Can you take any relevant action? Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Since when did 2015 Gurdaspur attack become a topic of Indo-Pak Conflict? As regards Balochistan, whereas I still maintain that the Balochistan, Pakistan being purely a geographical topic has nothing to do with Pakistan's politics, but after Mr Human's (undue) indication, I agreed not to participate at the relevant talk page, and since then I never did. Human is just pushing it. Lastly, had I been so determinant at violating the topic-ban, I would not have refused to participate in my topics that interest me even when I was being canvassed. Moreover, seriously, I can live without participating on pages from which I am banned and still contribute to Wikipedia positively as shown here:

• Sabeen Mahmud
• Kim Yo-jong
• Benjamin Sisters
• Javed Iqbal Ramday
• Central Superior Services of Pakistan
• My Trip Back to the Dark Side (film)
• Chappie (film)

—TripWire ^talk 19:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be away for a few days and won't probably have time to look more closely into this, but at a glance, it seems to me that edits like [5] and [6] clearly do fall within the bounds of the topic ban. Claims regarding Pakistani support for militant attacks in India are obviously related to the Indian-Pakistani conflict. TripWire, I'd ask you to step more carefully there; Human3015, if you feel the problem is ongoing, I'd recommend asking other admins (or WP:AE), or wait until I'm back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So what you want to say is that in future ANY terrorist attack on Indian soil (which is condemnable), even like that carried out in Manipur by rebels in Mayanmar, will automatically fall within the scope of Indo-Pak conflict, because it ultimately will end up being supposedly supported by some terror group linked to Pakistan? This sir is a huge statement. Since when did Admins at Wikipedia have started speaking the language of Indian External Affairs Ministry?—TripWire ^talk 08:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Penguins53 is clearly edit warring on the Assyrian People page......and no that doesn't mean I was edit warring simply because it was my edits he was reverting. My edits were made in direct correlation with the discussion on the talk page. Time make good on your threat to indef' block some these people. Sr 76 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you are allowing @Penguins53 to make changes contrary to the rules on the "Assyrian people" Page????????Sr 76 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Posters

From your talk in non-free images in WWE NXT special episodes that the posters are not important but there is no WWE event without poster as NXT specials, ECW specials, WCW and the Pay Per Views so please don't remove any poster from any user from any WWE Event page and if you have posters upload it and thanks. Mostafa Elsherbini (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanization of Greek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail

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

Tufor (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog -> Tagalog language Requested move 25 July 2015

Thanks for this, which you characterized as a "ridiculously long closing statement". You thought about this harder and analyzed it more deeply than I (as one out of many) did. I have not reviewed the discussion about the prior move in the other direction and don't want to rehash either that discussion or this more recent one with you. Thanks again for doing what I think was a thorough job on what is too often a thankless task, and Cheers.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I second Wtmitchell. I too appreciate the thorough reasoning and justification. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Top quality close. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Strikeout requested

Hi FP,

You made an inaccurate comment at Talk:Tagalog language that I would like you to strike out: "no justification for move-warring against the closure, a form of misconduct for which Kwamikagami at least ought to have been blocked on the spot." I had not done anything inappropriate. This was discussed in a previous thread, in the comment beginning "Correct, I hadn't seen the discussion." I merely came across the article, thought someone's been moving articles against consensus again, and moved it back -- an entirely reasonable action that I (and others) do all the time. It was only later that I noticed the closed request to move. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No. If you move a page, it is your responsibility (especially as a highly experienced editor and admin) to check why and how the page got to the place it's at. Number 57's move summary clearly referenced the RM disussion in question, and the move log entry was just 10 entries down in the page history by the time you moved it back, so claiming that you didn't see it simply doesn't fly – if it wasn't deliberate move-warring, it was still irresponsible and incompetent editing. Plus, you moved it yet another time on 23 July, claiming in your log entry that the intervening move (presumably that by BD2412) was "against recent move request". I'm at a loss how to interpret this as anything other than either a sign of utter confusion or an outright lie, because there plainly was no prior move request that had ended with an outcome in favour of "Tagalog language" (there had been the 18 June one on the language talkpage, which ended in "consensus to move to Tagalog", the 30 June one on the dab talkpage, which ended in "no consensus to move back to Tagalog language", the 1 July one on the "people" page, which didn't affect the language page at all, and the 5 July one on the language page, which was aborted without a result. Taken together, if these two bad moves weren't disruptive move-warring, I don't know what is, so I'm not going to strike that out.

For the record, here are the relevant log entries:

• 14:03, 26 June 2015 Number 57 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog language to Tagalog (Per WP:RM on talk page) [This was the result of the Talk:Tagalog language#Requested move 18 June 2015 ]
• 05:52, 5 July 2015 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog to Tagalog language over redirect (per NCLANG, consistency, and longstanding consensus)
• 01:49, 9 July 2015 BD2412 (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog language to Tagalog (WP:RM closed out of process due to page moves; restoring status quo ante.)
• 05:39, 23 July 2015 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs | block) moved page Tagalog to Tagalog language over redirect (rv. move against recent closed move request)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In the second instance, there had been a move request to "Tagalog", which received strong opposition and was closed without moving. BD2412 then moved the page anyway, so I reverted. You made no comment about BD2412 being blocked for their move. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your block of 166.171.121.17

Hi, you blocked 166.171.121.17 (talk) some hours after they had stopped editing. I am pretty sure that they are now on a different IP address, the opinions and habits of 166.170.51.185 (talk) and 166.176.57.66 (talk) are remarkably similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, since User talk:166.176.57.66 continued editing in exactly the same way after a final warning at User talk:166.170.51.185, and they're obviously the same person, I have blocked the former for a week. Any further disruption from IPs in that 166 range can be safely blocked as block evasion from now on (well, for a week). I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about topic-banning a dynamic IP, though. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)‎

Mentioned at Jimbotalk

FYI: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Half_a_million_and_counting_-_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise_says_it.27s_.22unbefu.2A.2Aingleavable.22, [7]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For the very funny "admin abuse" userbox, and blocking lots of the vandals whom I've reverted. How could I find more great, spurious ANI posts to make userboxes of? GABHello! 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vedontakal Vrop

Hi, back in December 2013 you made this edit. The same user is at it again adding the same image back, along with a cohort who now outnumber me. I don't want to get involved in an edit war with them, but as you say this is a black and white violation of NFCC. The relevant consensus discussion is here. Can you help? -- GreenC 02:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Per [8], I would value seeing a link to the specific guideline that explains why you can't use an image of an author as a fair use on an article about that author's works. We do it all the time with free images for classical composers, so I looked at the WP:NFCC, but I didn't spot anything on point; may have missed seeing it - a bit of help pinpointing this would be useful to me in the future and help me avoid making similar errors. (And Green C, it might have been wiser to have used a different edit summary...). Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

Page Tymoshenko Yulia, You the user do vandalism. Remove the templates, information on the decision of the European court, authoritative sources. Stop, or I'll turn to adminstrat that banned You.--Lidaz (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, indeed, do tell an administrator, by all means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lidaz, looking for an admin? I can help you! Chillum 19:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chillum! Help me please. Page Tymoshenko, users (Fut.Perf.,talk,Tarc) delete information with a link. This group vandalism.--Lidaz (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hi Chillum, yes, that guy definitely needs some admin help. See WP:AE now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I find it incomprehensible that in the same sentence you commend me for underlining falsities in an article while adding that I am "quite likely a sock of some sorts and probably quite as tendentious". This is offensive and, I am sorry to say so, irresponsible (now I have made myself another enemy). Can't you grasp that my efforts to correct (often wilful) inaccuracies cannot but elicit animosities? This being said, I bear you no grudge. It is not my aim to engage in feuds with other editors. Besides, you are the first one to recognise that I am trying to restore the truth and, for this, I am grateful. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to remove this broken English stuff, but this account is hellbent on retaining it, so admin intervention appears to be rather necessary. I also see Association of international and national public organizations “Social protection” in the user's history, which is just a mess as well. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Association of international and national public organizations “Social protection” this article about a charitable organization that helps orphans, immigrants and the Ukrainian military.--Lidaz (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is to inform you that user Lidaz again reinstated his fallacies on the article Yulia Tymoshenko. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I have left two messages on your talk page and I was hoping for some sort of reply, especially since you have leveled serious accusations against me. Allow me to tell you too that, contrary to what you say, Lidaz's account is not yet blocked and he has restored his poorly worded propaganda.Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Againstdisinformation: Lidaz's account was blocked over an hour before you posted your message.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, the false fact that ECHR recognized torture has now been removed but there remains the assertion that it recognized political persecution. The court, in fact, recognizes a violation of article 18 in conjunction with article 5 for unnecessary pre-trial imprisonment, that in itself does not constitute political persecution. Perhaps it is, the point is the court does not say so. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, one more bother; this joker is back as an IP now; 78.111.187.166. Will probably need semi-protection for awhile. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done, 30 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply

How does it work? Here's the original source and licensing [9]. I uploaded on Wikipedia the same way as I uploaded other images from Wookiepedia. If you can assist me here, I'd be greatful.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You see in your image, under 'Licensing'? It says pretty clearly 'This work is copyrighted.' Wookiepedia has completely different (and, I believe, mostly non-existant) rules on copyrighting: they are not the same as Wikipedia's. Not all wiki's are the same. Read this just for a start. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what Fortuna says: before anything more can be done about that image, you need to clarify where it's from and who is its copyright owner. "Unknown" simply won't do. Then you'd need to figure out why and in what sense it is actually an authoritative, authentic illustration of what that kind of fictional rocket is supposed to look like. Why are you using a drawing to illustrate fictional elements of a film series? Is this just some random user-created fan-fic illustration or what? (In that case, using it under our WP:NFC rules is completely out.) Then, if and when you've done this, comes the most crucial and most difficult step: you'd have to make a case that your article actually needs such an illustration in order to be understood. Given the fact that that fictional missile, to all practical extents and purposes, looks just like any old real-world rocket, and the article contains no sourced discussion of any particular design features beyond that, this case will be pretty much impossible to make.

Speaking of which, I notice that you have been filling the Technology in Star Wars with a steady trickle of purely in-universe, largely unsourced and OR, trivia. You've even been citing "Wookiepedia" as a source [10]. This is highly disruptive behaviour that is really not tolerable from a contributor of your experience. Please stop doing that immediately and clean that mess up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:UAP Tower Photo.jpg

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thank you for the message. The File:UAP Tower Photo.jpg was taken showing the building has not been competed. This is in fact true. Once completed, I shall upload a replacement photo. I have indicated the same on the photo. Does this suffice? Let me know. Thanks again. Zotezangu (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it has nothing to do with whether the tower has been finished or not. The point is that the image is replaceable because somebody else could take another new photo of it at any time and release it under a free license. For this reason, as a non-free photograph it can't be kept. Also, please be warned: stop removing maintenance tags, using misleading edit summaries [11] or adding fake administrative tags [12]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thank you for the response. In light of you reasoning, images of buildings such as the Empire State Building and Commerzbank Tower should be deleted because their images are replaceable and others may take new photos at any time and release them under free licenses. Based on your argument (which honestly doesn't make sense), I opt out of this conversation. Zotezangu (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the argument probably didn't make sense to you because you missed one crucial part of it: the replaceability criterion concerns non-free files, such as the one you uploaded. The two you cited above already are freely licensed, so there is obviously no need to replace them with other equally free ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, I have delinked the images from the article. Now they can be deleted. I noticed that you have made over 76,000 Edits on Wikipedia. That deserves a lot of respect. Apologies for starting off on the wrong footing. Zotezangu (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Civility

I know we don't always agree on everything, but you need to remember to be civil. I didn't appreciate the snide comment you made in the edit summary when you reverted my edit on the Byzantine Empire page. We're all here to improve the wiki, there's no reason to be rude when someone makes a good faith edit. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I think more editors needs to object to "slow editwarring". Observing that it's happening, that one is frustrated with it, and is not going to keep putting up with it, isn't actually incivil. I just wished that fact was understood to apply to everyone who does choose to speak up about it and not mince words. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Being Human (UK series 4)

Hi, looking over the slushpile of drafts I found one on this season of a TV show, but I note previous versions have been deleted. I'm trying to work out why, can't find any reasoning or any duplicate season specific article. TIA for any insight. Rankersbo (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change again

Special:Contributions/78.145.31.93. I've reverted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd situation

Hello FPaS. One of my wikignome tasks is to help with cleaning up articles that wind up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Today the article Polandball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) showed up on this list. I waited until after the expiration time that you had set expired but found that the article was still protected. As I tried to figure out why I notice in the log that the protection sentence mentions "indefinite" as well as having an expiry time. I have been working with these for a few months but this is the first time I have seen this. I changed the notation in the protection template to indef and that removed the article from the category. I know your protection was six months ago so you may have to search your memory banks for what went on. I wanted to alert you to this so you can remove the protection if you think that it has served its purpose or leave it at indef. Thank your for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I too had to read that log entry twice to figure out what it is. Actually, what you're seeing is technically quite regular: the protection was set to indef for editing, and to expiry 13 September for move-protection only. No idea why I did it that way or whether it was intentional at all though. But given that the article was a classic target of Russavia trolling, I'm inclined to leave the editing-semi in place for a while more. Thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for the explanation. I know I have seen separate templates for editing and move protection so it is helpful for my work on these to know that they can also be combined. Leaving the protection makes sense as well. I hope that you have an enjoyable week on WikiP and, more so, off. MarnetteD|Talk 13:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. I do have questions:

What actions/refraining from action are required of me? Which are preferred of me?

I get the impression that this is like getting a warning instead of a speeding ticket. What exactly is it that I'm supposed to do or not do? I don't want to be back in a filing next week with someone saying, "We warned you not to make any posts on that talk page/only make posts on the talk page and not edit article/edit quotation marks in English but not WT:MoS" but I also don't want "What do you mean? Of course you were still allowed to make posts on the talk page/edit the MoS/edit quotation marks in English; you just weren't supposed to do X." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also requested clarification, at User talk:SMcCandlish#Topic-ban (not sure if ping worked; seems to be an unreliable feature).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's rather a lot of questions from both of you combined, so I'm afraid I might not be able to deal with all of it immediately; you might have to wait till tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)What? You think you're allowed some kind of weekend or something?!?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine; enjoy the holiday. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no hurry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's Sept. 9 now. :-) I've run into some editing walls on a couple of things that seem like they should not be an issue, but I'm trying to be cautious. [squeaking wheel noises here]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

And another week+ has passed. At this point, I ask that the TB just be lifted if you won't narrow it or even clarify its scope as requested. It's not preventing any kind of disruption (the WT:MOS mess was already winding down when you intervened, the noticeboard action has remained closed without further incident, and I see no need to revisit that matter). I don't see that dispute repeating in any such form; it will simply be a matter of sourcing.

The TB is simply having a punitive effect and getting in the way of my productivity here, including sourcing an article that very badly needs it, as well as continued drafting of two MOS pages (MOS:GLOSSARIES and MOS:ORGANISMS). It's also having a chilling effect on what RfCs, RMs, XfDs, even regular edits I make, since the scope is so overbroad it would appear to prevent me citing anything in MoS as a rationale. And interfering in my work to normalize our block quotation templates (which have nothing to do with the quotation-marks style matter at issue in the dispute you responded to), and providing sourcing on gender-related language matters that I promised to provide, and ... [insert a dozen other things].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ARCA appeal

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Soham321 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent IP block

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I noticed you blocked IP 159.15.129.71 for 48 hours, but I wondered if you saw this edit:([13]), which I think calls for a significantly longer block. RO^(talk) 19:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, practically speaking, with IP editors, the block length is not so much a matter of how severe their disruption has been, but how long they are likely to remain on the same IP. Since most IPs are dynamic, it usually makes no sense to block for very much longer, unless we already know the IP has been stable for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits go back 18 months. Or are you saying this might be a shared IP? RO^(talk) 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc (talk · contribs)

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Shahzada Mohiuddin

Looking at the cause of an edit war here and trying to figure out why you tagged this for deletion. The photo has proper EXIM info and the uploader asserts they are the author. Is there reason for doubt? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

F7

On your deletion of File:Zimbru_Chișinău_-_Tottenham_Hotspur.jpg per the argument of CSD:F7, I don't see how that applies. I will agree that the image shouldn't be used on WP, per NFCC#8 in that's its just decorative, but there's no immediate elements of the rational for the image that qualify for F7 speedy. I want to make sure with non-free we follow a clear process to avoid running into the same situation from about 5-6 years ago with BetaCommand and seemingly undiscussed image removals that the community did not take lightly. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It had been nominated at NFR by the uploader himself, with the argument that it was "without major significance for article", so I could just as well have deleted it under G7 (author's request), or under F7 (invalid non-free use), under the obvious IAR assumption that there is no need for a notification grace period when the person to be notified is already aware of the issue and has already assented to the deletion. But it also had a blatantly false non-free use tag ("unique historic image"), which even without the special circumstances would have brought it under the scope of immediate F7 without grace period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Constant vandalism on the page Ethnic Macedonians

Hello Future Perfect! How have you been? We run into a vandalism problem in the sensitive page Macedonians (ethnic group) with the user User:19999o doing disruptive edits and violating wikipedia's rules, including the 3RR rule, by making more than 5 reverts in a day only, against 5 other users, and without any interest in using the Talk Page to reach a consensus with the rest of the community. The user does not seem willing in following Wikipedia's principles for sourced material and insists in removing verified information. His attempts to impose his personal POVs and getting involved in edit wars with numerous other users, including me and 4 others, who tried to defend the page from his disruptive edits, left us no other option but to ask for a moderator's attention. Also it seems that although the user StanProg tried to warn him on his talk page (today the morning) to refrain from further actions of vandalism on this page, the User 19999o doesn't seem to listen at all,and (today the night), he again reverted the edits of another user! A moderator's attention may be needed. Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since I reported him to you last time, the user in question continues with his disruptive behaviors and in spite of any warnings in his Talk Page. So I brought the matter to the Administrator Noticeboard instead... --SilentResident (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration clarification request archived

The GamerGate arbitration clarification request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 12:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Heimdallr of Æsir

Perhaps you saw my message at User talk:Black Kite requesting an unblock for Heimdallr; this was purely because the edit-warring wasn't a problem. As I noted a little while later, of course I don't oppose a sockpuppetry block; it would be rather absurd for me to file an SPI and then object to its results being implemented! Just leaving this note to make it clear that I appreciate your help here and won't be requesting a reconsideration. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw what you wrote to Black Kite and figured out you weren't objecting. Thanks for the note here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban imposed by you

I just checked that TripWire has violated his topic ban again,[14] and it was one of his last 5 edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @D4iNa4: Just following in from the SPI you filed against TripWire, on which I have a few things to remind: notifying an accused editor of a pending SPI, while not compulsory, is certainly considered courtesy and telling someone to "shut up about it" when they raise that issue isn't exactly the way to go. I am aware you were banned indefinitely for a year due to multiple account abuse and just returned recently. I'm a bit curious as to how you came across TripWire, the SPI or the topic ban issue, when the latter (on the SPI) claims he's never interacted with you. Regardless, I'll just end this as a polite reminder that if you wish to become a constructive editor and don't wish to bark up the wrong tree, WP:CIVIL is one of the pillars which we are all expected to conform to. Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am more surprised with your ignorance that you don't understand difference between a ban or block. There was no abuse of multiple accounts on my part and it that was very clear stated during my unblock request as well, I didn't even knew that accounts can be unblocked or else I would've requested unblock right after I was blocked. Other than that there was no violation of civility policy especially when the concerning user has made obnoxious allegations about me and other editor. What this has to do with the violation of topic ban anyway? Next time take this to my talk page instead. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your block log and your unblock requests, in addition to remarks by admins and streams of other evidence, does indeed show that you remained blocked indefinitely for one year and that it was due to abuse of multiple accounts. When you say that there was "no abuse of multiple accounts on my part", is that a denial of the above or a reference to the intervening (blocking) period? Clear me if I've misunderstood. Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Find a single article or any namespace where I used two CU confirmed accounts of mine. During the unblock request I already proved that there was no actual abuse.Then only it was accepted. Having not socked since block was just adding more credibility to the unblock request. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4 So after having failed at the SPI against me you thought to go further with your mischief and report me again for a so called top ban vio? I'll leave this to FPAS, but what I do care about is that how is it that you all of a sudden became so interested in me when I have never interacted with you in any form, especially when the last edit I made was on 19 Sep 2015? You are a meat-puppet of someone right? Yeah. Anywaz, as for your allegation that I have violated my ban, just to educate you, the argument about whether the date of Pakistan's independence is 14th or 15th is, t beast, an international issue which primarily affects Pakistan and not India, alone. Though there is no conflict, but even if it is there, it is between Pakistan and the historians which does not necessarily belong to India alone. Moreover, this discussion pertain to Pre-partition, Pre-Pakistan info when "conflicts" between "Pakistan (hours old)" and India were not there. Conflicts arose well later and beyond the point (of time) which is being discussed at the talk page which you (deliberately) misinterpreted. Just because the discussion at the talk page was being carried out among Indian and Pakistani members and that a meat-puppet did not like it, it does not make a case.—TripWire ^talk 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just an unnecessary discussion, only point is that TripWire is violating Topic ban repeatedly even after several warnings. --Human3015^TALK  18:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for actually taking the time to look into the content issue with the Turkey map and assuming good faith on my part. And also thank you for taking action with the Shuppiluliuma SPI, it was about time someone did. Athenean (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also FPaS. Your intervention combined content-awareness and sock-awareness while setting the record straight regarding the actions of longstanding editors. Your block of the sock-farmer brought this disruption cycle to an end. Impressive actions as an editor and an administrator. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion you might be interested in

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You're mentioned in an appeal at WP:AN#Request to lift temporary topic-ban

User:SMcCandlish is appealing your AE ban from the MOS. This looks to be an arbitration enforcement appeal. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Derp. I'm so used to pinging people these days, I forgot to drop off a proper notice. Sorry! PS: It's not actually an appeal, its a request to lift the ban early. While I've somewhat questioned (in side-band commentary in a collapse-box) the rationale for it as a WP:ARBATC enforcement (because the WP:ACDS authorized by that case pertain to MOS and AT, not article content), and as an interference with normal WP:ANEW process, I have not disputed that I was in the wrong for my part in the disruption in the original dispute. The basis of the request is that the topic ban continuing any longer serves no preventative purpose (i.e., it's purely punitive), and that my 7 or so requests for it to be narrowed or even clarified as to meaning have been ignored. I've already tried in good faith to deal with this with the imposing admin, so I'm now asking the admin community to consider whether "time served" is sufficient. I.e., it's a request for "parole", not an "appeal".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User Peacebigline

I think this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikedpluri is also Peacebigline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VANK&type=revision&diff=684708634&oldid=681461565

I'm not sure how to report this, but I saw you had already dealt with him, so I guess I should tell you.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

oh yeah, and maybe this IP as well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.1.28.64 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note

Regarding this, I don't recall anyone (troll or otherwise) asking me that question, but the answer is "countless times". Any idea if a legitimate user ever actually asked me that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, given that the IP posting was from User:Vote (X) for Change, it had to be expected that the relationship between the posting and truth would be tenuous at best. Best not to give it too much thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The point being that if his comments had not been removed, I would have asked, "Where?" out of curiosity. However, I do not recommend restoring the troll's comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/86.150.165.45: the IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change has been edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARCA

FYI, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Waenceslaus. The editor seems to be appealing your topic ban, but in the wrong place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ducky?

Pretty decent example, no? ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful edit request

Hi there. This smells very like Vote X For Change to me, but I'm not experienced enough to call it. May I ask for your expert opinion? Tevildo (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Aryanprince

He seems to be promising to use socks if banned (see ANI). Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Semi-protecting desks

Hallo, Fut.Perf! I wonder whether you'd consider reducing the current durations of desk-(semi-)protection. We get so many genuine questions and also helpful replies from non-registered people, that I'm getting a bit worried. Queues of edit requests have been forming at WT:RD, but, more unfortunately in my view, shutting out this portion of contributors and querents might also mean they won't come back soon, or ever. I think we're pretty ok at responding to (as in removing) the more nefarious trolling quickly, given the number of regulars who have and check the desks on their watchlist. Thank you for your consideration. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree about us being "pretty ok" at removing the socking – it has regularly been a pain in the ass having to clean it up (with multiple sections being reinserted by edit-warring socks multiple times, sometimes for weeks, keeping old threads from being archived because of all the bogus sock traffic on them, with the sock edits then often getting superceded by other people's edits or getting responded to so that rollback or even undo was no longer feasible. As for the edit requests, most of the traffic there appears to come from a single "regular" IP editor who refuses to register an account, so I'm honestly not too much inclined to bend over backwards to accommodate him. Personally, I'd keep the bords semiprotected at least until the threads that were most recently subject to the sock attacks have safely slipped away into the archives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and thank you for your swift reply. I guess one of the problems is that the reference desks as well as the trolls both rely on a large amount of AGF. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I came here with the same question. I wonder if the best approach might be a consensus discussion at the talk page? --Dweller (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, any admin can of course lift the protection if they see fit and if they are prepared to take over some responsibility for keeping the pages clean afterwards. It's just that I won't, having seen the situation for the past few months. Personally, I wouldn't mind if these pages remained semiprotected permanently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As a rule (and in my humble view, a good one) I dislike the idea of undoing another admin's tool use and would always prefer to discuss it. --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock for a Block

Editing the attacks on you at Jimbo's page, same range: [15]. GAB^Hello! 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, thanks for reverting the nonsense on my page. This marks the first occasion that a post on my page has had to be rev'delled, and I'm quite honored. GAB^Hello! 16:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

LiXuanze

You've blocked this editor twice and now, after a three-month block, has returned to similar behaviour. See [block request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris article and The Promenader

Hello,

Yesterday and today I've edited the Paris article for the first time in a long long time (like almost a year). You may remember all the crazy shenanigans from last year. Back then you had stated that the article was under a strict "comment on content, not on contributor" rule and that users should be civil with each other and not engage in edit wars.

Well, sadly, despite this being my first edits in almost a year, I was almost immediately confronted to some aggressive behavior and insinuations by User:ThePromenader. See for yourself: [16]

This is frankly sickening! After a year away from the article? For Christ's sake! This makes editing this article almost impossible. And in a week such as the one we've just experienced, when people should be nice to each other. It's disgusting. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are being bothered with this. I didn't have anything at all to say about Statistiker's earlier edits, and the reason for my edit was clear in its commentary. Not only did Statistiker have no reason to revert, he did so without leaving any talk-page explanation and an edit commentary that amounts to "I'm telling on you.". Statistiker is the problem here, and he's running to you because he managed to manipulate you in the past. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you'll read the talk page, you'll see that I was discussing article changes (without even making any, I'm still waiting for consensus on that) well before Statistiker made any article edits. Statistiker made an edit he knew full well was wrong (as we can see by his prepared flame-creating reaction to its correction), and if this is how he 'deals' with its being corrected... again, he is the problem, here, and his obstinate goal to obfuscate Paris' division with its suburbs (and gloss over any mention of the poorer realities there) is doing nothing to help solve the problems there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

filioque

Tell me how I might better handle the dialog on the talkpage to that article. Tell me how I might contribute my knowledge to promote Wikipedia into being a more valid and equitably sourced online Encyclopedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think you can, because that would require you to be here for fundamentelly different reasons and with a fundamentally different motivation than yours. I still believe you should not be let anywhere near these topics at all. When and how was your topic ban lifted anyway? I can't find a record of it on your talkpage. Link please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please post the topic ban as it stands so that I can make sure to adhere to it. As you a representative of Wikipedia I can use this to confirm what I am allowed and not allowed to contribute. It would be greatly appreciated. As I am unclear myself and that is why I have requested your help. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On 11 April 2014, you accepted [17] an unblock under the condition of an indefinite topic ban from "anything related to East/West (Orthodox/Catholic) theological and historical disputes, with the ability to appeal this no sooner than 6 months after". I don't see that you ever raised such an appeal; if you did, please point me to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK that is what I was looking for. I had it in my head that it was a ban from the schism article. Rather than guess I sought to clarify before I went any further. So wikipedia has spoken. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See also the entry for User:LoveMonkey in WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is an older, much weaker restriction, which has been superseded by the current one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for giving some extra information at the end

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acejet/Archive. --The Avengers (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert of your edit

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, by mistake I reverted your edit here. I was attempting to thank you for your edit and this happened. I have restored your version. Sorry for the trouble. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for the note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko again

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You certainly remember the false claims made in the article Yulia Tymoshenko about the alleged recognition by ECHR that she had been tortured. You corrected the article towards the end of August, but the allegations reappeared and you had to ask Dennis Brown to protect the article. Well, the allegations have resurfaced. Have a look here [18]. I reverted to the revision by Davide Denti, which looks correct, but was reverted in turn. I certainly would not like to be seen as engaging in edit warring, so I chose to alert you. Thank you for having a look. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Looks very much like another sock from the User:Lidaz sock drawer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RM #6

Talk:Bangalore#Requested_move_29_November_2015. On and on it goes... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was coming by to notify you of the same stuff. Your prior closure with the possibility of WP:AC/DS sanctions is still on the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again - complaint by ThePromenader in the admin noticeboard

Sigh... I'm discovering User:ThePromenader has filed a new complaint against me in the admin noticeboard, with the same paranoid crazy stuff as last year: [19]

Here goes the rule "comment on content, not on contributors" set for the Paris article I suppose... In all my years at Wikipedia, I have never ever seen such an aggressive editor. I already wrote to you 10 days ago about how he jumped at my throat the moment I made my first edit in the Paris article in almost a year. Now it's a complaint on the admin noticeboard with all sorts of paranoid nonsense, and then what next? This guy is the very reason why I seldom edit Wikipedia these days, because how would one devote time to a platform like this if they are harassed for every single edit they make? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I explained the rationale behind complaints like these, and this very 'following me' one, in the ANI complaint itself [20] (with diffs).

Question everything, even this. Sorry again for the bother. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have let people know in the admin noticeboard that last year you set the following rule after ThePromenader already filed various complaints against me and asked for my banishment: [21]. ThePromenader breached the rule twice since my return in the Paris article a week and a half ago: first by accusing me of "POV creep" (I already reported that to you, but here again: [22]), and now by filing a new complaint against me. Is the rule you set last year still applying to the article? If so, I don't understand why ThePromenader is allowed to breach it without consequences. And to be honest I'm sick and tired of being the object of accusations and complaints from this guy. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wowitmoves comments

Thank you for promptly banning lame troll Wowitmoves and striking his comments. FYI NE Ent removed your strikeout[23] claiming "(there's no "strike comments of blocked editors policy")" and complained about it here. It seems like there should be for trolls based on WP:DENY. I don't want to revert NE Ent since I am an involved editor in the Professor JR ANI but Wow's comments seem likely to confuse others and elicit more responses. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI Comment

Hello Future Perfect,

I'd like to ask you to kindly stop with the 'tag-team' affirmations, at least in my regard: the only people who could be in the ANI 'with me' are the people who are aware of the latest disruptions, and the idea that SiefkinDR would partake in 'tactics' like that is just... no. I took it to ANI for admins (or whoever decides things there) to examine the evidence and my own record, and that's it. I did ask the advice of jmabel before posting the complaint, and I don't see him there anywhere, yet you don't see me summoning his 'vote'.

And when we think about it, if I really wanted to 'tag-team' (and the WP:GAME that insinuates), I could summon every Paris-article contributor that Der Statistiker has ever had a problem with over the past ten years (and believe me, there's a packet, and that could very well be within my rights), yet you don't see me doing that. But if you insist on thinking that I'm 'tag-teaming' and pushing a m:Megalomaniacal point of view, please feel free to open a full investigation on all my (limited!) wikipedia activities (that you apparently haven't even looked at yet), and please don't hesitate to contact other Paris-article contributors about me.

I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I can't just watch you pass judgement like that by what you see on the surface, especially when your judgement is heavy-handed, and especially when people are actively trying to manipulate what you see. Again: question even this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And If the tag-team comment wasn't about me, apologies. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Verbing weirds language

I just wanted to say that I enjoyed your statement "Everybody likes to zero-derivation once in a while. It just funs, and somehow clevers your diction" at WP:RD/L#Do Story. I'll have to practice that! — Sebastian 20:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for catching that error I made - and being so diplomatic about it! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion on this

Hello (yet again). I would like to submit this to you and have your opinion, because I think we need a non-involved comment on this. It's about User:SiefkinDR's edit of the Paris article today, which is a neat example of why I find it impossible to edit this crazy article. Only 3 days ago I added a "metropolitan governement" section in the article, to reflect the upcoming creation of the Greater Paris Metropolis: [24]. Today SiefkinDR entirely rewrote my edit: [25]. For factual reasons explained below, his rewriting of my edit from 3 days ago would need to be almost entirely reverted, as most sentences of it introduce errors in the article, but I cannot do it because as you very well imagine I would immediately be accused again of "disrupting" the article and whatnot.

I will now present in the most matter-of-factly way possible what's wrong with his rewriting of this section, and I would welcome your opinion on this afterwards (I expect nothing from posting this in the Paris talk page, for obvious reasons):

• the bit about the brief history leading to the creation of the Greater Paris Metropolis was deleted (Sarkozy 2007, etc). That in itself is not a factual error, but I can't see what was wrong with having these two brief sentences.
• SiefkinDR writes that the Métropole du Grand Paris is called simply "Grand Paris". That's factually wrong. In France the term "Grand Paris" refers to a larger project of which the Métropole du Grand Paris is just one component (the administrative and governance component), but the Grand Paris project also encompasses other things such as the Grand Paris Express métro. The correct shortened version of the Métropole du Grand Paris in French is MGP, not "Grand Paris".
• In my edit, I correctly stated that the MGP would be made up of 131 communes, based on the official government decree whose link I gave as a reference. SiefkinDR replaced that with a more complicated wording that is both wrong (there aren't eight communes in the outer suburbs but just seven), and based on a newspaper article instead of the official government decree which he chose to remove as a reference.
• Likewise, SiefkinDR replaced the correct land area and population that I had given with factually wrong ones based on that newspaper article. The figures he gave refer to the land area and population of City of Paris and its 3 surrounding departments, not to the MGP whose territory is larger than that.
• The bit about the metropolitan council (French original name deleted by him, I don't know why) having 210 members is uncertain. We won't know for sure how many members there are until January of next year, which is why I had written no number in my edit.
• The bit about the MGP being divided into 12 territories is also uncertain. The exact number of territories will be known only in the end of December, which is why again I had not mentioned this in my edit.
• In that same sentence, the last part "to select the members" makes no sense. If what is implied is that the territories will select the members of the metropolitan council, then that is wrong. It is the municipal councils of the 131 communes which will select the members of the metropolitan council, not the territories.
• The next sentence in SiefkinDR's edit is wrong on several counts: housing policy will be transferred to the MGP in 2017 only (not 2016); the MGP will NOT have any competence regarding economic development (that rests with the Paris Region). On the other hand, SiefkinDR forgot to list various other sectors over which the MGP will have authority.
• SiefkinDR incorrectly said that the MGP will not raise its own money and will depend on the national government and Paris Region for funding. The key aspect of the MGP is that it will precisely be able to levy its own taxes, thus creating for the first time in the history of Paris a metropolitan authority levying taxes at the metropolitan level. This is the exact opposite of what SiefkinDR wrote here.

Overall, the only parts of SiefkinDR's edit here which add some new information and which are correct are the following:

• "not directly elected, but chosen by the councils of the member Communes" (although "municipal councils" is the precise term)
• " will have its headquarters at 19 rue Leblanc in the 15th arrondissement of Paris." (not sure that's really needed in the article, but that sentence is certainly factually correct)

All the rest should basically be reverted for factual inaccuracy, but like I said I can't even do that for fear of more accusations and whatnot.

What's your take on this? I know it's tedious to have to check this in detail. It's tedious for me too to have to waste half an hour to write you this, when none of this would be needed if other editors a- respected the work of fellow editors, and b- made a point of editing mainly things they are knowledgeable about (here we have an obvious case of an editor not very familiar with a subject who rewrote the entire section dealing with this subject and introduced many errors by not really knowing the subject he's writing about). I'm very knowledgeable about the Greater Paris Metropolis for personal reasons that I don't have to disclose here, and I don't understand this need to rewrite the factually correct section that I had created, and introduce almost one factual inaccuracy per sentence in the process. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise:

I'd like to respond to Der Statistiker's comments above. First, I apologize that I didn't explain first on the talk page that I was going to make the additions, as i should have done. I did announce it on the talk page of the "Grand Paris" article, where I originally added this information, along with other recent information about the project, since that article was very much out of date. I shouldn't have been in such a hurry.

I took out the mention of Sarkozy because I felt that the Grand Paris project today has changed very much from what he originally proposed. His role is described in the Grand Paris article, to which this section links.

I used the term "Grand Paris" because that's the title of the article in the English Wikipedia to which this links. There is often confusion with the other "Grand Paris" which includes public transport. It's made clear in the article on Grand Paris, and I can also try to make it clear in this article.

I took the numbers of Communes from the Le Moniteur article, and it looks like it was incorrect by one commune. I appreciate Der Statistiker pointing out errors in the newspaper account about the number of territories and the funding mechanism. I can correct those. I appreciate Der Statistiker's knowledge on the topic. I am very glad to correct any inaccuracies and am always glad to discuss any differences of opinion on the talk page of the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't explain why you rewrote entirely a section that I had written only 3 days ago (when you often complain on the Paris talk page that people should not edit other editors' edits without discussing it on the talk page) and replaced content that was 100% accurate and sourced with content that is 90% INaccurate and poorly sourced (for example, why replacing the official government decree listing all the communes of the Greater Paris Metropolis with a newspaper article??). In the current context where I'm attacked on both the talk page and the admin noticeboard, your total rewrite of something that had been written only 3 days ago and was accurate and sourced can only be interpreted as some sort of silly attempt to provoke and establish your ownership of the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Der Statistiker,

I have no claim to ownership of the article, I just object to the way you speak to me and the other editors. If there are mistakes that need to be corrected, why don't you say that on the talk page instead of here? I have already made the corrections that you pointed out. You obviously know a lot about the subject, and I would be glad to collaborate with you on the article, if you were just a little bit less sarcastic and insulting. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have no claim to ownership of the article, then can you explain why you rewrote entirely ([26]) a section that I had just written 3 days before ([27]) and that was accurate and sourced? Der Statistiker (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting better and better, now we have ThePromenader moving around comment from other people in the talk page and deciding where they should stand inside the talk page! ([28]) And I'm still waiting for your comment on this, as, as I expected, SiefkinDR is not in the mood to mend fences here and consider my proposal ([29]). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not FPaS, and I don't pretend to grok the depth and breadth of this obviously very old and deep dispute, but it is (a) clearly a content dispute which (per normal Wikipedia practice) needs to be resolved on the article talk page, except that (b) you guys are obviously feuding so badly that you're never going to be able to work it out on the article talk page. If I were an administrator, I would direct both of you (under threat of block) to leave the article alone for, say, a month. I'm sorry to say this, but it would be better for Wikipedia if the article were left without the benefit of either of your edits, than for who knows how many other editors to take who knows how much time trying to sort our all of your accusations and counteraccusations. You guys clearly have an infinite amount of time for this, but nobody else does, so nobody else is going to try to mediate this dispute for you.

I'm sorry to be harsh. I know that one of you is right and the other is very wrong, and I realize it's utterly, utterly unfair to suggest that you both have to stay away from the article just because of the bad behavior of the other. But, sadly, these things aren't always fair. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Steve Summit, I see that I've been banned unilaterally this morning from editing the Paris article and all related articles, so your suggestion here (discovering it now) is pretty moot. This one-sided ban is unfair, but not surprising considering the amount of time and energy ThePromenader has devoted in the past 2 years to have me banned from these articles, including harassment right immediately after I started to edit again the article after nearly a year of not editing it. What I can see from this whole process is that on Wikipedia at the end of the day the editors who get their way are not those who spend the most time editing articles and adding information, but those who spend the most time on the admin noticeboards and contacting admins off wiki. Quite enlightening.

PS: expect reams of counter-responses by ThePromenader, who has been tracking all my edits on Wikipedia for nearly two years now.

PPS: I don't think I have ever registered an email address with my account here, so I cannot, and don't even wish to, be contacted off-wiki; the only person who knows my identity in real life is the journalist from Le Monde who interviewed me last year about this article, and without betraying a secret I can say that he's quite amazed at this renewed banishment process re-initiated by ThePromenader, just as I was. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

92.24.106.62

Nice catch. Thanks! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Petralona story

Hi! have just read your post in the Talk:Aris Poulianos page. This was very helpful. I am just about to re-edit the Petralona cave - one of many articles in the Homo department that are in a pitiful state. I wasn't aware of the degree of Mr. Poulianos' irrelevance. I just read one of his 2 page reviews here: ([30]) This was very unimpressive. He is a believer on a mission. But this guy has a following - his ideas are not unpopular in orthodox Greece. Anyhow, i think i have to re-write the entire text. ATB Wikirictor (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding...

...this: No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Neogothic

I have enough of your belittling talking! If you don't want Neo-Gothic stuff in the Gothc language page, explain why in a rational way, but instead you just remove it all and you are talking about 'a private hobby', these Gothic books are mentioned on Omniglot, a quite well-known website and not just an unknown source. Bokareis (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Omniglot is in no way a reliable source at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that is so, but these books are for sale on Amazon and can be found very well, mentioning that they are in Gothic, translated by (comparative) linguists, may I ask WHY these books shouldn't be mentioned and why they have no significance to you? Bokareis (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Amazon listing is equally worthless. Anybody can put their self-published book out for sale via Amazon. The only way you could demonstrate noteworthyness of that "neo-Gothic" revival project as a whole, or any of its products, would be to find them discussed in reliable independent sources, of which there are none. Since you yourself, as a known enthusiast of that revival idea, are editing with a WP:COI with respect to its noteworthiness (you've gone on record here as the author of a "Gothic news website"), you will please leave this discussion alone and leave the decision about it to others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This subject is seemingly not of academic interest, so there aren't any reliable independent sources, as I guess you only view scholarly sources as independent and reliable (while they aren't), and I haven't put a direct link to the main page of that news website, just to a dictionary there because someone had put up a link to the oe eclipse dictionary.

Bokareis (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please unprotect my talk page

As the owner of that talk page, I feel it's up to me to decide when it should be protected. Yes, there have been repeated edits by a banned user, but I feel that the "cure is worse than the disease" when you block all anons from leaving me a message there. If it's too much trouble to keep deleting the edits of the banned user, then just leave them. I will ignore them and he will probably just go away.

Thanks, StuRat (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't. Given the fact that you've had no more than two or three legitimate IP postings on your page within the last year, and basically not a single IP posting ever that was actually related to the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e. building Wikipedia articles (rather than mere follow-ups to some RD chatter), I don't really see what the damage is, and as long as it's been us admins who've had all the work reverting the nonsense, I'm afraid you'll have to let us have some word in how to deal with it. By the way, I asked you to consider archiving your talkpage, so that at least the affected thread might get off the page; I didn't see you respond to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the policy on this ? Do the owners of talk pages (when themselves in good standing) really not have the right to decide when their pages are locked ? As for your argument that reverting edits on my talk page takes too much of your time, I already suggested that you stop doing so. (If you stop playing with a troll, he will get bored and move on.)

As for archiving, you didn't explain the reason in the edit summary. Now that you have, I might do so, but it requires a lot of time on my part since I don't archive everything, only select bits. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

I uploaded the file from the Pakistan Army website, which is a public domain. All government and public organization websites are public domain. What was the copyright violation?--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. Not all government and public organization websites are public domain. What made you think they were? The ones you copied those images from are clearly marked as "copyrighted". Take this as a warning: you have a very very poor record of image uploads, and making several such unacceptable uploads on the very first day after being released from a topic ban is a really bad sign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Not all the images covered my topic ban, I could have uploaded some of them prior to the ban being lifted. The sci-fi image I uploaded was from two image sharing websites, free to share, provided no profits be made. I uploaded them under the terms of minimal use. Also as an example if you look at the article on BB-8 (Star Wars) the image there was uploaded before and passed the fair use criteria. I uploaded the sci-fi image under the same terms. Where did you see a copyright marking that I missed? I would like to know.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The problems with File:Futuristic Temple and Spaceships-SciFiArt.jpg were different. There were multiple problems there. First, it wasn't an image of a "proposed building or architectural work", so it fell under WP:CSD#F7 for having an obviously incorrect tag. Second, the image sharing sites you took it from are themselves in violation of copyright – you even talked to the uploader at [31], and he even told you outright that he had taken it from somewhere and didn't even remember from where. So what on earth made you think this uploader's "permission" was worth anything? Third, you can't use artwork under WP:NFC if you don't even know its provenance and authorship, because there is no way to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance) and WP:NFCC#1 (irreplaceability). You were using it merely as a generic illustration of what some unspecified fictional worlds in sci-fi look like. As long as that's all you wanted to do, it could easily have been replaced with any other, including made-up pictures that you or I could create ourselves. Such illustrations can only legitimately be used where the specific work they are taken from is the object of specific, substantial and well-sourced discussion. That's obviously impossible if you don't even know what that work might be.

I notice I warned you about a very similar case of abuse of non-free images a few months ago, at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 31#Reply, both in terms of image policy and in terms of disruptive article content. You did not react to that warning, you did not clean up the mess you created there (even the "wookiepedia" "source" is still there!), and apparently you have instead continued to edit in exactly the same way. This is highly worrying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not entirely satisfied. What was wrong with me adding the logo of (a public image) the Balochistan police (a public organization) from their own facebook page (a publicly viewable space)??? And how is the sci-fi image any more copyrighted than the BB-8 image? Is it because the author of that image does not hold intellectual rights to lucasfilms creations? If that's so, then I understand. And what of the other images, which you did not point out copyright markings to? .

I believed that the website of the Pakistan Army and sites belonging to the UN are public domain because they paid for by the public and made for public viewing.

--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Well, no. Not okay. I don't have time to explain the basics of copyright to you yet again. Please do not upload any more images, of whatever nature or status, until you can demonstrate you have done your homework and gained some basic understanding of image policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a linguistic chart that I produced using photofiltre and plan on uploading it within the next few days, possibly tomorrow, and will do so. But since you refused to answer my question under the claiming you don't have time, I have brought it up with someone who does. You could have provided me with links to the policies to help me out.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

GAB^Hello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a happy and healthy 2016,

GAB^Hello! 15:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Future Perfect at Sunrise, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Question / Tban

Regarding the topic ban which has only 5 days left, is this even related to my topic ban which was on Indo-Pak conflicts & politics? The personality was involved in independence of Pakistan and British Raj politics and not post formation politics of the country (as he was not alive at the time), secondly my comment has nothing to do with the topic of politics at all, rather about his literary work. Obviously seems gaming the system to hound me [32] on behalf of human; clearly seems hounding to me to stretch the nearly finished Tban beyond the breaking point. Just want to clarify this so that I can self revert if this really means something against my Tban to comment whether a poet's literary works can get a separate article or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy TopGun, Iqbal is one of principal pioneer of Pakistan Movement which was a political movement. You should control yourself from violating your topic ban for few more days. No issue of hounding, that page is on my watchlist. --Human3015^TALK  17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

1) The literary works (from before 1938) have nothing to do with the pakistani politics (a country founded in 1947) and are a philosophical topic (a completely different aspect), 2) Founding of Pakistan is not the same as Pakistani politics per se (even broadly construed) - not that I am commenting even on the founding of Pakistan or Pakistan movement. Hounding can happen with or without being on watchlist. This is why I've requested this clarfication here to avoid all this drama to a ban with only 5 days remaining and zero violations, you are mistaken if you think I can not abide by a restriction (even if I don't agree with it) after editing wikipedia since 9 years. I think it would be best if you let FPAS reply and be done with it as I already said I can self revert (it wont matter, I will add it after 5 days in that case so, IMO, WP:IAR should apply anyway. It is a non contentious comment on a simple unrelated topic). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much?

I noticed that you semi-protected the reference desks up until March a few days ago. Isn't that a bit too long and too much? I know that there had been some unconstructive edits to said pages but from experience the vast majority of edits to the said articles from users are helpful. And besides, you protected all of them as opposed to just a single page. Maybe you could at the very least shorten the protection up to a week? If this is a persistent problem there must be some alternative to (relatively long-term) protection as it's going to be unhelpful to IPs who do have legitimate questions there. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Newar language and another mal-formed RFM

This mal-formed request for mediation has been recreated after you removed the previous one: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/It's "Nepal Bhasa". Since your name was left off the list of parties involved, I thought you might want to know about it even though it is so mal-formed that it doesn't even show up on the WP:RFM page. Cheers!--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 07:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Future Perfect at Sunrise!

Happy New Year!

Future Perfect at Sunrise,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Happy New Year, Future Perfect at Sunrise!

Happy New Year!

Future Perfect at Sunrise,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

IP 83.10.137.78

I am an admistrator on Polish Wikipedia and I am acting in behalf of King of Cucumber Kingdom who recently created account on our wiki. He want edit en.wiki but due to IP 83.10.137.78 blockage (which is Orange Polska dynamic IP) he is unable to do it. He will be very grateful if you unblock this IP. --Pnapora (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

IP 2.98.175.149

This IP is making nonconstructive edits in the same vain as the 2.98.169.215 IP you blocked earlier. On researching I found that both of these IPs are traced to the same individuals. JJARichardson (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

JonathanJoshy

Minor thing, I can confirm this was Anglopyramidologist. He posted to my talk page about a book by Raymond Capt that he'd used in British Israelism . No doubt it's him. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Winter

Hi, I think it'd be ok to lift the full protection now given that both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Celebrity_breast_size and Talk:Ariel Winter#Breast Reduction have arrived at a consensus. -- Chamith (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

2 Socks

It seems that User:Voyevoda got 2 socks as User:Voevoda and User:Воевода. Worth checking.--Galassi (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0 this is not formatting correctly.--Galassi (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

What if I have business w/ you as admin?

Excuse me, but do you mean, as admin, to prohibit any post or Q I might have of you, s/ you perform any admin action I have Q about, concerning me? (And if so, isnt' that against policy? [You are admin so I'd expect you to know that.]) IHTS (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in the (unlikely) event that I should take admin action in matters concerning you, there would of course be no problem about posting here, in a matter-of-fact way. In any other matter, consider yourself banned from here. Do not answer to this or enquire further now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, that is decent of you (i.e. "unlikely"). Sincere, IHTS (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't think he's doing you a favour. But, it's good that you think so HNY :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IHTS, you've been clearly asked to stay off this talk page, including not further commenting on this request (as you then did). You've also had it clarified that you can still contact here for administrative matters; that can't be banned. If you comment here further (except about an admin action affecting you), I'll presume you don't intend to stop, and take appropriate action from there. For clarity's sake, if you need to reply to this, do so on my talk page, not here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just pack it in

Removing items from my talk page, including my own comments, will soon end badly for you. It appears that you need to take a long break. Stop now before it's too late. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Having friendly encouraging chats with banned harassment vandals is not looked upon lightly. Do no reinstate that banned vandal's posting again, or you will be blocked for proxying for a banned user and for enabling harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. It's my talkpage, and you have now twice deleted my own comments. Block me and you'll be at Arbcom, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sympathy

Seeing this, I apologize for the shit you're having to deal with. -Darouet (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, this has been going on for months now; it is rather annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please dial it back, FP@S

Blocks work well with vandals, POV pushers, banned editors, etc. As you well know from your long, long history of dealing with such editors. They don't work so well with estabished editors who happen to disagree with you. I've unblocked both TRM and Cassianto, because this could easily be resolved without threats and blocking, and maybe just maybe this can somehow be resolved without long ANI threads or ArbCom cases. I have long respected your work here, but this was not impressive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I too have a lot of respect for you, and for that reason won't challenge your unblocks. Nevertheless, I fully stand by what I did. I have very little patience with established editors making common cause with banned harassers. It was extremely poor form for TRM to respond to the harasser in the first place, rather than revert them on sight, which is the only acceptable way of dealing with them. Reinstating the posting after explicitly being warned about it was way over the line. The policy on this is crystal clear: if you reinstate postings of banned users, you are taking full responsibility for them. If the posting is harassment, and you reinstate it, then you will be treated as a harasser just as much as if you were its original author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not even enough patience in order to stick to the rules, eh? Seeing as I'm here, maybe you'd like to translate the badly worded wiki-speak you seem so eloquent in using? Who knows, I may learn something? Cassianto^Talk 21:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you are evidently not here to actually solve or discuss anything but merely to spread your usual snark: go away, there's nothing more to be said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)First, I believe you that this was probably a banned editor, based on their behavior and my sense of smell. But it isn't like it's been proven somewhere, has it? If someone doesn't think it's a banned editor, is there something besides your word (well, and my +1 of your word) to point them too? You probably have a better reputation than most any other admin for ID'ing these people, but it still can't really boil down to "because I say so", can it? A fantastic way of handling this would have been to explain why you're sure it was a banned editor, and (if TRM had not removed the post themselves after explanation), asked another uninvolved admin to review. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Just so you know, "Perfect", I responded to an IP, not a "banned harasser". You may have a list of IPs that you consider "banned harassers" but I don't. The information the IP gave was interesting and shows your misbehaviour, just as the current threat at ANI is doing, and the thread on my talkpage where you threatened to block me for re-opening a discussion, and the thread were you blocked me and revoked talkpage access without any warning other than in an edit summary and where you blocked another editor with no warning at all. Just take a look in the mirror. Multiple misuses of the tools in 24 hours. Plus you were INVOLVED in all of it. Arbcom beckons. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Floq: TRM is a refdesk regular; he knows the signature of that banned creep perfectly well, just as everybody does who posts there. At the time I removed the posting, the IP had already been blocked and was duly marked as a block evader (by another admin), so there was nothing difficult to understand about the situation. TRM: I never had any dealings with you. I approached you yesterday as an uninvolved admin trying to stop your edit-warring. You don't magically make me "involved" by then turning against me with the kind of abuse you did [33], or by "banning" me from your talkpage – if every edit-warring editor could that easily make themselves immune from admin intervention, by simply spewing insults against any uninvolved admin that crosses their path, we'd never have any admin action at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A complete lie. I knew nothing about the IP at all. Nothing. I responded because the IP posted some informative items about your "behaviour". Please retract the lie. As for Ref desk regular, no, a ref desk talk page semi-regular. I have never seen this IP edit style before. You made mistake after mistake here, the sooner you realise it, the easier the Arbcom case will be. If you stopped before you abused the tools, that would have been helpful, but you didn't. I don't hold out much hope, but an apology would be a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You participated in several threads at WT:RD dealing with the page protections triggered by exactly this vandal. Plus, obviously, given the nature of the IP's posting, any experienced editor with half a brain could easily figure out it was a harassment sock, even if you didn't recognize the sockmaster. Plus, as I said, by the time I removed it, the IP was blocked and tagged, and of course by the time of your final reinstatements I had clearly informed you about it through several channels. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen this editor using this edit on my talkpage in the past. Providing evidence of your "misuse". You had informed me via edit summary. I asked you not to remove my own comments on my own talkpage. You clearly ignored that. And then you blocked me against INVOLVED and revoked my talkpage access in one easy hit. Misuse after misuse. Arbcom will decide. This discussion is over for me here. Goodbye. (Just one more thing he knows the signature of that banned creep perfectly well is a complete and unfounded lie. If you'd like to retract it, fine, if not I'll be reminding Arbcom of your use of lies to further your cause) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if you say you don't know it, sure, who am I to contradict? I'll gladly retract it and replace it with: you would have recognized the signature of that creep if you had been competent enough (which maybe you aren't; there's no way for me to tell.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, Arbcom will decide on how to handle you abject misuse of tools and ignorance of INVOLVED. The "creep" highlighted more of your failings. You don't like it. So what? You censored my talkpage, including my own comments twice. You blocked me after warning me via edit summary and revoked my talk page without proper warning, you blocked another editor without warning at all, you had already threatened to block me a day or so ago, you were so fired up, all bristling and ready to go. You need to stand yourself down. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Enough. Take the case to Arb, or don't. What are you trying to accomplish by hanging out here? You're telling him/her to stand down, but you just keep coming back. SQL^{Query me!} 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that blocks are only meant for vandals and that they should not be used on regular editors is held by some, but it has failed repeatedly to gain consensus. While proper warning for Cassianto would have been a good idea, the block against TRM was sound. The difference being that TRM was informed and warned.

When a banned user posts copy/paste harassment on several user talk pages they are meant to be reverted. For two reasons, 1) banned users may not post, 2) it is harassment and harassment needs to be removed from Wikipedia.

When a user restored the content of a banned user they take responsibility for the edit. If the edit is harassment they are taking responsibility for that too. This is the sort of thing we could have discussed if we talked about this first.

I will also point out that your unblock was contrary our admin policy. You should have tried to talk this out first, and if you could not find an agreement you should have sought a consensus. When you just unblock you are gaming the wheel warring policy to force the last word in a situation.

I was in the middle of discussing the Cassianto block with Future where you acted. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you @Floquenbeam:, but in this case I think you got it wrong. HighInBC 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, "Perfect" got it wrong. Four times. Flo used common sense, something which is clearly lacking in this "admin". It was on my talk page, I'd already responded, and was given a trite warning via an edit summary, nothing else. Then my talkpage access was revoked instantly. That's admin abuse, right there. Flo was right, although we don't want it, this is going to Arbcom, and like other admins recently who have abused the tools again and again, threatened and got INVOLVED, this admin will cease to be allowed to continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised you would want your behaviour examined in yet another arbcom case. HighInBC 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

and I'm "surprised" to see you muscling in on other peoples disputes Chillum. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're surprised. This isn't about me, it's about your buddy who has made two bogus blocks tonight, failed to give proper warnings, violated talkpage guidelines, threatened editors, and acted contrary to INVOLVED. I have no problem at all seeing Arbcom once again. Do you and your buddy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, HighInBC is Chillum! That explains everything. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ultimatum: TRM, HiBC, if you guys don't knock it off, I will block myself for a week. And will not unblock myself, nor accept an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that. I was curious that we had some kind of "uninvolved" onlooker, but now I know who it is, everything is suddenly crystal clear. I'll go clear out my underwear drawer. Don't block yourself, you're one of the able in the land of the incompetent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Stereotypes of West and Central Asians listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stereotypes of West and Central Asians. Since you had some involvement with the Stereotypes of West and Central Asians redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Solovyev

Vladimir Solovyev is buried in an Russian Orthodox monastery as an Orthodox Christian.[34] I have tried repeatedly to correct his BIO which explicitly depicts him as a convert to Roman Catholicism by a non peer reviewed and non English source. I provided a source that refutes this but it was deleted. [35] As did the Roman Catholic editor Esoglou [36]. Yet these contributions were deleted and the article again was returned to reflect the Russian Philosopher as Roman Catholic.[37], [38]. Can I please get some help as to correct this discrepancy that is used as a point to show how Wikipedia does not work and propagates falsehoods about historical figures. As this as an ongoing issues appears to remain unresolved. Thank you LoveMonkey (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You're requested to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise as a party

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Future Perfect at Sunrise and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Autoblock

Could you have a brief look here please? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Joseph2302#Autoblocked

"Best known for IP" LTA

is also editing as 85.13.233.114 and 85.13.233.118. BMK (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to say though that I've just been looking through some of the edits you've been rolling back, and find that every single one in this recent batch that I've looked at so far was in fact an obvious improvement. Is it really useful to react to these edits with immediate blanket reverts? As you may know, I'm among the first who will take a strong stance on enforcing WP:BAN on project and user space edits that involve harassment and other forms of nastiness, but with these kinds of article edits this approach strikes me as counterproductive. I'm minded to go through some of this batch and reinstate a few, taking responsibility for them per WP:BANREVERT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FPAS, to cut a long story short there is no consensus on what to do with this guy's edits. I personally leave them unless they are very obviously not an improvement and focus only on conduct and attitude. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize it's complex. My approach would be sorta similar: silently tolerate his presence as long as the edits are evidently useful; immediately semiprotect any article on which he starts edit-warring against real opposition (expressed on actual content grounds). That's not to say I'm putting any blame on BMK here: being banned, the IP user doesn't have the right to force his agenda on us, so any good-faith Wikipedian is fully within their rights to blanket-revert them without spending the time to check the quality of each edit. I'm just asking whether that's the wisest course of action to take. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(Had this in its own section, but moved it up when I saw this one.) Thanks for looking over some of this LTA's edits and taking over responsibility for the worthwhile one you discovered. It's a part of the process I don't always have time or patience for, and I appreciate someone doing it. Best, BMK (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Note

About this,[39] sometimes it takes a little coaxing for the troll to reveal his true brownshirt colors. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ref desk protection

In response to " I'll say it again until somebody finally explains this to me: why is collateral damage less tolerable on the refdesk than elsewhere?" - This is because protecting an article space page on e.g. Israeli/Palestinian conflict that is prone to POV violation and abuse does not prevent anyone from reading our article, using our provided refs, etc. However, protecting the ref desks prevents people from both asking questions and providing references. The difference is that reference desk services are interactive in a way that reading an encyclopedia is not. They are also sort of more ephemeral than main space - typically threads are only active for a week at max. If someone really wants to contribute good info an article but is unwilling to register, I'm not too sad. As you say, they can learn our processes if they feel the need to contribute in a positive way. But that is not what we require from the general public - you don't have to be able to edit WP to be able to read it. You do have to be able to edit WP to use the ref desk. It's pretty simple if you think of it that way, isn't it? That is why I feel differently about protection in these different cases. If someone doesn't know about our registration and protection, or doesn't feel the need to register for a one-off question like "what species is this bird?", I feel we have done them a disservice, and once blocked at the door once, they may never come back. This drives our participation (askers and responders) lower, and in my opinion makes the desks worse. The user population (askers and responders) seems smaller and less diverse to me than it was a few years ago, and I think that as the desks shrink they get more catty and less useful.

I'm not going to bother counting things up, but I believe that we have far more good IPs asking good questions in good faith than troll/vandal IPs asking questions for nefarious purposes. We have no idea how many IPs just give up and go away after seeing permission errors. My perspective is that I volunteer my time to help whoever asks if I can. My perspective is that flagrant abuse is very short lived. My perspective is that we should AGF on borderline cases, and no harm is done by providing references in such cases. Where we get into trouble on borderline cases is when users start giving unreferenced opinion and bickering with each other.

One good reason I've heard recently for not registering - if you do, and largely contribute to the ref desks and not main space, some users will look at your edit history and accuse you of WP:NOTHERE! I find that patently ridiculous; I provide real help to many people seeking information, and there is no requirement that I edit mainspace to be allowed to use talk pages and reference desks. I'm a professional scientist, and often the one chiding others for not providing references. I find the long-term protection WP:disruptive to the goals of the desks. I know I probably won't persuade you to lift it, but since you asked I thought I'd tell you my perspective. Reading the talk page, it's clear I'm not alone in thinking the long-term protection is harmful. Finally, consider this: when someone makes a scene at a real-life ref desk, the public library does not demand that everyone show ID and library card before entering. This would be seen as overkill and a huge obstacle in preventing the library from serving its purpose. They simply eject the person if necessary and move on. A public library generally sees itself as more successful the more patronage they get. Likewise, I think our ref desks provide a better service (and more interesting) the greater variety of askers and responders we get. Of course I can't force you do anything, and I'm not an admin, but if I could convince any other admin to lift protection, I would. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation of your views; I appreciate somebody finally giving one. I will continue to disagree about most of it though. About your final point: it's all very well for your hypothetical real-life public library to "simply eject" the offending person. The whole problem is that we can't do that. In fact, I'm pretty sure that any responsible real-life public library in anything really resembling our situation (knowing that 50% of all visits to their ref desk are by the same guy with a new false mustache each time, knowing that they have no practical way of stopping him from coming back the next minute every time they throw him out, and knowing that the same guy is simultaneously stalking and harassing other library patrons and employees elsewhere), they would very quickly take the emergency measure of temporarily withdrawing that refdesk service completely to protect their staff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, So you're allowed to remover my good-faith edits from your talk page, but I'm not allowed to keep what I like on my talk page because you decided it needed to be removed?! This seems very irrational and inconsistent, and I'm pretty sure that's not that way it's supposed to work here. Nothing about my comments was rude or uncivil, and removal of such is definitely against our talk page guidelines, even on your own talk page, even if it's "unwanted". Then you accuse me of being a harasser? That's not very nice. I do good work here, and you're being WP:POINTY. It's almost like you're picking a fight over this minor issue. I don't want to fight with you, so maybe we should just not talk. Consider me under a personal IBAN from you until you apologize. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is how it works: everybody is allowed, at any time, to remove anything they don't like from their own talkpage, for whatever reason they fancy. That's what I chose to do. That doesn't imply you can also add or keep anything you like without restriction. There are many things you are not supposed to add to your talkpage: personal attacks, non-free images, copyright violations, BLP violations, and so on. Reinstated postings by banned harassers happen to be among these things. (Or, well, technically you can reinstate them, if you wish to take full responsibility for them, but that freedom comes at the price that if the posting constitutes harassment, and you were to take responsibility for it, you would then be considered the harasser yourself, and could be blocked for it, so it's inadvisable). If it's not immediately evident to you how and why the posting constituted harassment and came from a banned user, well, I told you it did, because I happen to know. If you don't believe me, it's your responsibility to figure out the background yourself. As for the talkpage guideline, I already pointed you to it; you misread the guideline. "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" is allowed. Even more pertinently, per WP:BANREVERT, any user is permitted at any time to revert any material posted by a banned user, no matter on what kind of page.

As for your "IBAN", well, you can't impose that on me unilaterally, sorry. What you can do is to tell me not to post on your talkpage, which is a request I will be happy to respect – however, even that doesn't override WP:BANREVERT, and it doesn't prevent me or other administrators taking administrative actions in enforcement of a ban that might, among other things, affect your talkpage too. In a word, if that banned user posts on your page again, I will remove it again, whether you like it or not, or some other admin will do so if he beats me to it (just have a look at how User:Elockid has been doing the same, on any number of other users' talkpages.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

editor specializing in Scientology articles possibly

Might you kindly note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jason_Scott_case and the associated article, [40] in which he insists that the Church of Scientology had nothing to do with the purchase of CAN's assets, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bias_in_favor_of_Cult_Awareness_Network_and_Deprogrammers_--_Rick_.28Alan.29_Ross and the associated articles, [41] and the associated talk page, noting that he has been called into question on this by other editors, [42] where he "improved syntax" by making major changes to an article, had a number of edits revdeled from 18 January 2016, [43] directly edited Scientology calling it "syntax" again, and on and on.

Has edited Richard de Mille, Jason Beghe , Unification Church, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, [44] deleting material from David S. Touretzky, [45] same from Johan Helsingius, Lumen (website), and Fishman affidavit.

Not to mention Phil Mason (who has commented on Scientology), Moxon & Kobrin, Steven Fishman, Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., Lawrence Wollersheim, Michele Miscavige, Mark Bunker, Ursula Caberta, Allen Barton, Jamie DeWolf, Tommy Davis (Scientology), etc. etc. etc. All within just the past two weeks.

Every single edit appears, in my honest opinion, to be aimed at advancing a pro-Scientology POV and, again in my opinion, this matter is now of some urgency due to the nature of his or her edits. Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Neo^

Hey,

You were the last blocking admin for Neo ^ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The editor's since posted a request for a standard offer per another admin's instructions.

I'm hesitant to grant the request, but I'd be OK with unblocking provided the editor agrees to 0RR.

Just passing this by you to make sure you don't have any qualms with it. Let me know!

Best, m.o.p 19:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I too am rather skeptical, having seen this editor in action for a while and having come away with the impression that there's some rather fundamental my-way-or-the-highway approach to editing there, but he is knowledgable in his field and I guess giving him the benefit of the doubt for a clean "standard offer" request is fair. A good tight revert restriction would certainly be called for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How does this look? m.o.p 20:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

I would like you to unlock that page, which typically gets a lot of contributions (both questions and answers) from anonymous users, and to deal with the troublemakers individually. --My another account (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Every part of Wikipedia has to respond to trolling. When one or two people have an unlimited amount of IPs and spend most of several days rotating those IPs to troll more then protection is needed. HighInBC 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

My point was that, at a RD, collateral damage from a blanket ban on anonymous contributions may exceed the damage from trolling that it's trying to prevent. Myself, I haven't seen that many anonymous trolls on RD/L -- in any case, they are far less frequent than valuable contributions by anonymous users. --My another account (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Case request

A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RDMA hatting

Respectfully, I submit that your hatting of WP:RDMA#What did people use before slide rule and calculators and computers were invented? was more damaging to the reference desk than the question itself which was reasonably worded and well answered through the combined effort of several editors. I wish to unhat the section and let it stand, but wanted to broach the subject with you here in the interest of minimizing the drama on the desks and WT:RD, Would you object if I proceed? -- ToE 13:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would. It was a troll, the troll is blocked, trolls shouldn't edit. Every further reaction to the troll means the troll wins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"It was a troll, the troll is blocked, trolls shouldn't edit. Every further reaction to the troll means the troll wins." Yes, but can you see how your hatting was such a further reaction? It takes a desk with what are, to all appearances, well asked and answered question, and converts it to a trolled desk, with the troll's accomplishment nicely highlighted by your hat. How does that aid any reader of the desk but the troll itself? Sure, delete a troll's questions when they are first asked if that is called for, but don't go highlighting them after the fact unless your intent is to create certificates of appreciation for them. -- ToE 18:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've no plans of taking this any farther than expressing my opinion here; there is enough discord on the desks as it is. Thanks for your work wielding the mop. I'm sure there are many situations where no action (or inaction) will satisfy everyone. Cheers! -- ToE 18:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, whatever you do, I'll ask you not to help restoring postings of that particular person you handled here [46]. This is not merely a troll, but a long-term banned harasser, and in my view it is absolutely essential that they should not be tolerated in any form and in any place, no matter what it is they post. Postings by that person must be removed, no matter how harmless some of them might appear on the surface. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Had I noted your IP block of a sock of a banned user (or caught the warring in the history) I'd have removed the post instead of breaking it off into its own section to be dealt with -- one way or another -- on its own. Sorry about missing that. I should have looked more closely. -- ToE 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of this thread until just now, but I've already removed the hat. FPAS does not get to make consensus by himself, especially when the post in question violates none of our guidelines, and is in fact an interesting question that many people are interested in. If anyone else wants to close the thread at this point, please seek consensus and follow WP:BRD. I'd advise FPAS to spend his volunteer time in more constructive ways. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't care enough about that Ohio person to revert you over this one. You would have presented your objection with more credibility if you hadn't spouted all that nonsense about me blocking things "based on the IP being in OHIO". We're talking about this group of immediately neighbouring IPs. We may well disagree over whether or not that's a troll or just somebody who just asks many daft questions, but don't you start telling me you're not seeing this is always the same person; I'm not going to stoop to arguing on that level of stupidity. (Incidentally, though, those hatted Ohio posts had nothing to do with the reason for protection, which was the same in the case of the math desk as with the others.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted. In fact I don't care if it's the same person or not, and I don't care what their motive is. Call me a stickler, but I don't like to make claims that can't be rigorously proven. What I believe is that there is someone at OSU trying to have a bit of fun, and that the people who try to shut him up are giving it to him. I'm sure these trolls cackle in delight, thinking of you, or Bugs, or a few others getting into fits about it. I don't think anyone's getting kicks out of me giving simple references to questions about human sexuality. And if they are, I don't care. Again, we should not be upset if one of our askers enjoys one of our responses. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Please monitor the article as User:Dragovit you warned yesterday might not be adhering your advice. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baba Shemin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veles. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply to hasty

I uploaded it in compliance with UN policy that pictures already uploaded on their site do NOT require permission provided that credit is given (which I did). I intend to upload images in compliance with WP policy, not to violate.

I also do not appreciate your tone and threats to block me. You have repeatedly used hostile language and REFUSED to point out specifically which policy I was in violation of and continue to do so. I am considering seeking third party intervention if this bullying continues. This image has also been pre-published by the uploader, which allows it to be used solely for informative purposes.

As stated on their website "permission is, however, NOT required for reproduction of photo material as allowed by statutory exemptions (e.g. UN-affiliated non-governmental organizations and United Nations Associations, UN system organizations, including Specialized Agencies) or Fair Use. (Fair Use applies solely to scholarly, academic, non-profit, or journalistic use of properly credited UN photos.)" --Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about File:Pak Rangers on UN peacekeeping mission.jpg? Please read our policy on WP:NFC. The issue is not whether you could legally use that file under "fair use", but whether it passes our test of irreplaceability as imposed by our Wikipedia-internal policies. These policies have been explained to you before, several times. You seem to have serious difficulties grasping them. As long as that is the case, please do not upload any more images. It's that simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am referring to the deleted file. What else do you think I was referring to? I did indeed place that image in compliance with Wiki policy which you linked above that states: "The policy allows projects (with the exception of Wikimedia Commons) to adopt an exemption doctrine policy allowing the use of non-free content. Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. Non-free content should be replaced by free content should such emerge."

• Y The image was used only in one section of a single article and was not circulated.
• Y The image met the original copyright owners requirements prior to being re-published.
• Y The image was published in compliance with WP:NFC#4, being an already published work outside of Wiki
• Y The image is not replaceable to my knowledge per WP:NFC#1.

If I knew of a free use image showing the Rangers on peacekeeping missions, do you in your serious mind think I would bother adding this one? Likewise if I did find an image of the same quality and accuracy that was fair use, what makes you think I would hesitate to add it? You argue that fair use images of the same topic exist, yet you have provided no shred of evidence that they do. Tell me are there any images of them on Wikimedia? If not where are they? If so, I failed to find them. The burden of proof is on you, since you're arguing free use images of this topic do exist out there without showing me a single one.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If you had spent a fraction of the energy you've been wasting on complaining here to instead actually read the policy with an open eye, you'd have found that WP:NFCC#1 clearly demands that "no free equivalent is available, or could be created". It doesn't matter whether a satisfactory free replacement is already known to you or even that it exists – what matters is whether it would be possible, in principle, for somebody to create one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, no free equivalent is available at the moment (but it can be in the future should a free one arise) and what's more is no it would be nearly be impossible to create one. Believe it or not, that image was found by me by accident and there's no images like it. This image is acceptable; especially when it meets the creators requirements of fair use in addition to satisfying WP:NFC#4.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Hi dear friend, I just came to know that you were the one who ended the "discussion at talk page" of Kargil War and you warned the users to not to involve in edit war in future but you also said that in near future, users are allowed to add results/or discuss with sources..... Well, I added the results with at least 10 neutral reliable sources but my edit has been reverted and I do not wanted to involve in an edit war so dear sir, will you please have a look to this ?

I added the result Decisive Indian Military and Diplomatic Victory and you can check the references, here are they:

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Full protection on the misc desk?

You are having a joke surely? DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't mean to use full protection, of course. Must have misclicked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Next time, check what you've done please. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps next time consider that your actions are disruptive, they are not helping, and they are against community consensus. You really do seem to have some personal vendetta going on, and I suggest you take a step back for your own peace of mind. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You would come across as more credible if you kept matters separate that are different. The recent protection of the Misc desk was because there were eight attacks within one hour from three different socks of the nazi troll posting holocaust denial. I protected for 12 hours. Find one single admin who would not have considered protection under such circumstances appropriate, on any page on this project. As for the reverts on the Science desk, if you like that Vote X person to no longer be banned, go to ANI to propose they should be unbanned. As long as they are banned, their edits will be removed, no matter by whom, no matter where, no matter what it is they post. That is policy, and that is community consensus, whether you like it or not. I'm not going to re-remove that particular posting we edit-conflicted over, but I do believe it shows exceedingly bad judgment on your part to restore it. The community consensus is that that person has no right to be on Wikipedia, and that also means they have no right to ask questions on the desk, no matter whether one of them happens to tickle your curiosity. Now go away and don't speak to me again; you are not welcome here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fut.Perf! Out of curiosity, is there any way we could place banners on Reference Desk pages with something like, "Please report racist socking to the Soft skin SPI?" It would certainly streamline things, especially since not everyone knows which SPI these incidents are filed under. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was just saying to somebody, I don't really think it worthwhile to have all those throwaway accounts reported there, with all the bureaucratic overhead of an SPI case. It's not like the CUs can really tell us more about them than we already know. Just let an admin B-R-I them, and if nobody is available report at WP:AIV, is what I would do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reporting an IP used by troll

You asked me not to file formal sockpuppet reports for the Reference Desk troll. Is there some other procedure that I should use for an IP address used by what appears to be the Reference Desk racist troll? There is no immediate need for action at this point, because the Science Desk has been semi-protected for 24 hours and the IP address blocked for 72 hours, but is there some particular way that I should report the IP address? (By the way, as you can see if you browse the history, this started as what looked like a reasonable question. Only after good-faith dialogue began did the troll start trolling. That is consistent with the history of the term "trolling", which was a method of fishing, where you only draw the line in after the bite.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Block reason

Hello,

Can you please update your block on this IP range to explain reasoning? Thank you, wish I could further explain why it is relevant. :) -- Cheers, Riley 02:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. It's a core range used very frequently by User:Vote (X) for Change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Official Greeter?

A admin gave me a title of official wikipedia greeter but i don't see where i can get a template to inform others.....Beyonder (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

Should the current artist's impression be removed from the Planet Nine infobox?

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Talk:Planet Nine#Conclusion 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, nagualdesign 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

About File:Gonzalo Sanchez Moreno.jpg

Hi User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I just want to talk to you about my picture. The reason I uploaded it is because there was a very few amount of pictures of Gonzalo Sanchez Moreno. I think there are only 3. But if you can find a replaceable image better than the original one, then I will be grateful. But please think about it. Marcus Gallagher (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking here. The thing about our policy regarding non-free images is that we consider them replaceable not only if a free replacement is already known and available, but if a free replacement could in principle be created. This is almost always the case with pictures of living individuals, and even more so with public figures like this one, who regularly appear at highly public events (we're dealing with the manager of a national football team, right?). Whenever this guy appears in public, somebody has a chance of taking a photo of him. As long as that is the case, Wikipedia will not take recourse to a non-free image instead, as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: I see from your user page that you state you share your account between two people. Please don't. Here on Wikipedia we go by the principle of "one person – one account". I actually ought to block your accounts at this point, as a safety measure, but as I see you already have two named accounts registered, I'll just say, please make sure each of you uses just one of them in the future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Note

Is 31.109.183.147 (talk · contribs) in the same subnet as a number of the trolls you've been blocking? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Though the location matches, the ISP is different, and I think the style is somewhat different too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

82.32.51.253

Good call on Ref-Desk Science. This was perhaps same editor that asked I want to sell my poo? You where very quick off the mark there, before I could respond – and I was watching at the time. Do you have a little list? Or are you able to keep it all in your bio-Ram Memory for an instant response? Got him/her or it on my watch list now. Maybe we can make a productive editor out of him yet. Here’s hoping. But how where you able to respond so quickly ?--Aspro (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

IP troubles

Hi FPaS,

Hope all is well. You appear active so I came to you. 92.3.22.140 (talk · contribs) which has been blocked for personally attacking me appears to be socking with this IP 92.3.30.114 (talk · contribs). This is not the first time it has socked or called anyone fascist. 92.3.26.121 (talk · contribs) had the same fate recently. All of this points to concerning sock activity and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the situation. By the way, should this not merit an extended block for 92.3.22.140 (talk · contribs)? Also, a full-range IP block may be helpful here. These IPs keep sprouting up out of nowhere. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)

Hello! As there is already an only proposed Wikipedia guideline on naming conventions (Cyrillic). The proposal is still in development, under discussion and needs of gathering consensus for adoption. Since I am well experienced on this subject, I would like to criticize the official transliteration of Bulgarian as it gives too many errors, which also causes some losses of sounds “ǎ (a hacek”), decentralise itself from other slavic languages (“c” and “š” voices), which is also conflicting in itself (see street signs 1 and 2). By this revision, it is away from being accurate and not able to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedia which claims to be scientifical. These are the reasons I invite you to read Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic and involve the discussion in order to contribute a possible concensus. Wish to see you here thanks Manaviko (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Republic of Ilirida

Hi Future Perfect, you had protected this article a couple months ago. The protection expired a few weeks ago and the same IP editor is back at it vandalising the page. I'd appreciate it if you could again protect the page. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Future Perfect, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:As Long as You Love Me

I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note

Be aware that a drive-by IP (108.29.169.88 (talk · contribs)) is making potentially libelous charges about you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. No idea what creep that was this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Modern Gaulish

You are right that that material overwhelms the article; as conlangs go, it is a reasonable one. I reverted just so we can prep a proper move of that new material to an article of its own. Thanks for your patience. -- Evertype·✆ 12:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

[Moving tresponse to article talkpage.] Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you didn't discuss it on the Talk page. You escaled to AfD. -- Evertype·✆ 22:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I did open a discussion first [47]. You were still active editing at that time but didn't respond. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Substituting template in user talk archive

Would you mind substituting the transclusion of {{Unicode}} in one of your fully-protected talk archives? The template is being orphaned as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_24#Template:Unicode. Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please have an eye on 178.203.232.187 (active mostly yesterday) and 2A02:908:1D1:7FE0:F4D8:F791:B3A5:F4BC active today. The continue the activities of the recently blocked IPs. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tariq ibn Ziyad may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Tariq ibn Ziyad''' ({{lang-ar|طارق بن زياد}} was a [[Islam|Muslim]] commander who led the Islamic [[Umayyad]] conquest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Note

70.171.213.174 (talk · contribs) has filed a potentially libelous complaint against you and me at ANI, and of course did not notify the parties. I also brought up Jayron32's name there, as another of his sea of IP's made a similarly potentially libelous complaint against him recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cartoonist Toms.jpg

Fut.Perf. I still don't know why it failed under fair use. I used the above image because the image that was previously included in the article was of no use as you could see. It was blurry and doesn't have quality as an image. Thus I replaced it with with the image in question. Do you think if I could find a free image, will I not use it? I couldn't find one.--Joseph 03:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nazis again

Sigh... Special:Contributions/73.37.121.13. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks for helping keep the ref desk clean. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi

No idea what is happening here, but I figured you probably know what to do so I am just gonna leave a link here: [48]. Oh, and this may also be of interest to you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As usual, the one of them was "Vote (X)", the other the nazi troll. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that was what I expected, but I didn't want to accuse anyone unfairly. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: has anyone tried to contact their ISP's? I am not a wiki admin, but I do have a customer that runs a couple of mailservers for his companies and I have reported several people that used dynamic IPs to spam phishing mails to their ISP (simply by emailing abuse@ispdomainname.extension). Usually their internet connection got discontinued a week or so after I had sent all the information I had gathered to their ISP. If you don't mind that I use your talkpage as an alternative to WP:ANI I will post here when (I think) I see that nazi asshole and Vote X again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Abkhazia infobox RfC

Due to previous participation in a discussion on the subject, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FYROM and again FYROM. No Macedonia

Macedonia is not the country but the name of the administrative division of Greece, namely the geographical region . Can yis territories reach and Macedonia but not Macedonian but Slavs . And the United Nations recognizes it as FYROM. These ... Do you want to continue the lesson ; Do you understand;--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Κατάλαβα πολύ καλά ότι επαναλαμβάνεις την γνωστή άποψη της Ελλάδας και, όπως οι περισσότεροι των συμπατριωτών σου, ενοχλείσαι πολύ από το "Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας". Δεν έχει όμως σημασία – εμείς εδώ στην αγγλική Βικιπαίδεια έχουμε συζητήσει το θέμα από παλιά και έχουμε βγει σε συναίνεση πάνω σε αυτό. Η απόφαση της κοινότητας είναι εκεί που σου έδειξα. Μπορεί να μη σου αρέσει, αν όμως συνεχίσεις να κάνεις διορθοπόλεμο στο θέμα αυτό, απλούστατα θα φας σφραγή. Δε χρειάζεται επίσης να μου κάνεις μαθήματα – σε πληροφορώ ότι ξέρω όσα ξέρεις και εσύ στο θέμα αυτό, μη σου πω και πολύ περισσότερα. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Μα όμως εδώ και ο ΟΗΕ τη χώρα την αναγνωρίζει ως FYROM. Πάντως η αλήθεια είναι ότι δεν είναι μακεδόνες (τουλάχιστον η πλειοψηφία τους) αλλά περίπου το 90 % είναι ρομά, βλάχοι, σλάβοι κ.ο.κ.--Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

BLA

Sir, this was the version before both the socks intervened. As the BLP violation was already fixed [49], [50] and was vetted by Ymblanter, the edit by first sock (DS) was wrong as there was no BLP vio. In removing the presumed BLP Vio, the sock not only did remove Musharraf's statement which was now sourced through a Newspaper and a Journal, but also removed 2 x source links and changed other well-sourced info. Now, the current version of the article reflects the same/DS' version. Whereas, Hyrbyair Marri's denial to his link with BLA may be added, but I would request if the article could be restored to its original pre-sock version, please.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 01:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing panel for New York naming debate

A debate is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Would you be willing to exercise your wisdom and participate in a closing panel tasked with adjudicating this 15-year-old conundrum? Apply here: Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Closing panel. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. You might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG ^talk 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you are on the panel - Future Perfect at Sunrise, Niceguyedc, and Newyorkbrad. I will hat the discussion an about 6 hours, and the three of you can begin your determination of the outcome of the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Note: I have now hatted the discussion pending the outcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • When will you make a comment? ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 07:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"a person who is quite incapable of ..."

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Restoration

i see you have administered the "Assyrian People" page to it's former plotical properganistic glory.Sr 76 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Are you still active? E104421 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Thankyou for messaging. The image was removed by the other user claiming it was "unnecessary" which he has not yet explained, I restored it and without explanation it was removed again.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Problematic IP returns after your block

Hello FPaS. I wanted to let you know that this IP 203.220.30.241 (talk · contribs) that you blocked sixth months ago has returned and created a batch of redirects that are problematic (at best) redirects. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism

In this revert you gave the edit summary that "because the previous editor was obviously a sock; not endorsing the content". S/he was endorsing my view expressed in the talk page, but let me assure you, I dont use socks!! If you have a suspicion that I used a sock puppet, please ask for a WP:SPI check.

The matter is being discussed here. The edit you reinstated is most likely to be disruptive editing by User:SheriffIsInTown where he has used non-online sources (may be fake ones) to drastically change the language. I would strongly to urge you to reinstate the last version before User:SheriffIsInTown's first contentious edit. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't say (or imply) anything about you being a sockmaster; what I said was merely that that throwaway account Towns Ambassador (talk · contribs) was a sock (I have no idea whose sock exactly it is, given there are several notorious sockfarms active in the area), and that I wasn't endorsing the content the sock forced me to reinstate. As I said on the talkpage, I do think the content in question is problematic. At the very least it's hugely overlong and needs to be radically reduced. I'm not going to take an active role in editing this material myself (apart from technical admin actions like cleaning up this instance of socking), but I'd wish you regular editors could find a way of reducing and rewording it that would not leave the editors on the "other" side of the debate with the suspicion you were trying to whitewash it, and that this editing could be achieved through actions other than blanket reverts. Incidentally, as for the issue you mentioned above, the fact that sources are offline does not automatically invalidate them, so that in itself wouldn't be grounds for removal (while for instance tendentiousness, undue weight and overall volume of coverage may well be.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not saying that the offline sources are not acceptable. In the early versions of the text, the statement "India has been accused of supporting terrorism by Pakistan" with online references was there. The editor SheriffIsInTown added two offline sources and changed the text to "India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh and Pakistan"!!! That edit was done with a lot of other stuff, clearly violating WP:NPOV among other policies. So just asked. Will try to sort it out in the talk page. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Explain

Hi,

Can you please explain why you have allowed the Assyrian People Page to regress back to original state of displaying nothing other than Assyrian political propaganda? Sr 76 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

removed link

Hi

Regarding the link on the Modern Greek page ( Ask any question about the Greek language and a qualified Greek teacher answers you ). I opened a discussion on the talk page here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_Greek#Free_service_ASK-GREEK

In summary : 1) It links to a completely free service 2) Unique and valuable to people having serious questions about the Greek language. 3) Other external links on that page do belong to commercial sites . I have given two examples.

Could you please respond and clarify?Leontaurus (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you read this?

Are you able to read what's handwritten here in German? Basemetal 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I could cheat and say I read it alright, but these 18th/19th century scripts are quite hard to read for people today, and Haydn's handwriting in his old age wasn't the best. But it's transcribed on the web as "Heute den 1ten April verkaufte ich mein schönes Fortepiano um 200 fl" (followed obviously by the signature "Jos: Haydn" and the date line "im 78 Jahr"). "Today, 1 April, I sold my beautiful piano for 200 Gulden". I'm familiar enough with this type of handwriting to confirm that that's what it says, having found the transcription elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Basemetal 18:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise, It seems that the threat from vote x for change is not yet over. He vandalized the Hegira article on 17 July 2016‎ with a ip-sock and the article remained in the distorted state for about two months. Being a not-so-notable article, it is monitored by only those related to its development, and not by others. This makes it vulnerable to long-standing disruptions. I think an indefinite semi-protection is needed here.

The article is not on a current issue, and almost all vital info has already been added. There is virtually nothing important to add here. So, a semi-protection will not be a problem, rather a good defense against the ip disruptors and socks. -AsceticRosé 15:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When or where can -ier rhyme with -ür in German?

The following stanza (from Der Greis by Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim)

Hin ist alle meine Zier!
Meiner Wangen Roth
Ist hinweggeflohn! Der Tod
Klopft an meine Thür!

rhymes Zier und Tür! Hello? Just a random isolated license or is there an explanation or maybe even a system? Basemetal 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Many German dialects (especially central and eastern ones) have a phonological pattern called unrounding of front rounded vowels, whereby "ü" and "ö" sounds fall together with "i" and "e" sounds respectively. In these dialects, it was naturally possible to rhyme "ie" with "ü". As far as I know (but I have to admit I haven't read up on the backgrounds, so don't take my word for it), among the authors who shaped the German poetic tradition between the 17th and 18th centuries, from the Silesian poets of the Baroque to the classicists around Goethe, there were many who came from dialect areas that had this kind of phonology. As a consequence, based on the examples of these classic authors, the license to use such rhymes in poetry became somewhat conventionalized, even among authors whose own dialects would otherwise have preserved the phonological distinction as in Standard German. In the concrete example you quoted I couldn't tell you if the author in question was from an i-ü-merging dialectal background himself or if he was using it just as a conventional poetic license. These rhymes are now known as "impure rhymes" ("unreiner Reim") in German. They were fairly frequent in 19th-century writings (a nice example of two of them in a row is from Heinrich Heine:

Und er brüstet sich frech und lästert wild;
Die Knechtenschar ihm Beifall brüllt.
Der König rief mit stolzem Blick;
Der Diener eilt und kehrt zurück.

This article [51] should have some of the details, if you wanted to read up on it. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer and for the reference. I couldn't access the whole paper since, as you know, Google will refuse to show a page once in a while, but what I got so far was already quite interesting. Beatrice Primus gives five processes that account for almost all of the unreine Reime, the first one being the unrounding which you mentioned in your response above. The first example in her paper (actually in the "epigraph" (?) to her article? is that the right word?)

Die Nachtigall im Schlafe
Hast Du versäumt:
So höre nun zur Strafe
Was ich gereimt.

puzzles me a little as it uses -äumt as an unreiner Reim to -eimt. Does that fall under the unrounding process too? (It would have to, I guess, as I can't see any one of the others fitting) Do the dialects that make ü and ö sound like i and e also make äu sound like ei (e.g. Feuer like Feier)? Is the diphthong ei globally taken to be the unrounded version of äu? (The first component of ai can surely not be taken as the unrounding of the first component of eu even though the first is indeed unrounded and the second rounded, but maybe there is a historical explanation) Basemetal 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Move review for New York

An editor has asked for a Move review of New York. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.  Paine  ^u/c 02:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I closed it again. Guess we never get to find out if you find your tool interesting. lol. John from Idegon (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So ...

.. who is this guy? Paul August ☎ 14:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably User:Deucalionite on an open proxy (or a copycat); trying to reinstate a rewrite he made through an IP on his regular IP range last year [52] and has been trying occasionally to push back in ever since. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump twitter tit for tat trivial too

That was not a proposal meant literally. The point was that the celebrity thing was similar in its level of triviality to Trump's use of twitter - neither should be included. Reading it again it I realize that I could've worded it better and I can see how someone might get the wrong impression but at the time, given the context of the conversation I thought that was clear. So to be perfectly clear, I do not think that this is a topic which should be included in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "How about you try to articulate why it should be included? You know, like with sources and stuff."[53] Sounds like a schoolyard challenge. You called all sources "far right media, neo-Nazi websites and fake news websites",[54] even after being clearly told it was from mainstream media sources. Doc talk 12:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If you think that asking for reliable sources is a "schoolyard challenge" then you really are WP:NOTHERE. And yes most source covering this "phenomenon" were as I described them, as is obvious from a quick google search.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your kindness in taking time to explain how-to-do. SILENTRESIDENT 21:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello FPaS. This was at the top of your page so I've moved it to the bottom. The thread is here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential Sockpuppet: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The IP at Gothic language and Proto-Germanic language

They've been doing this at Wiktionary for years, and just switch IPs so we can't block them. They add invented nonsense (in particular words that don't exist), don't ever communicate, use the same standard edit summaries over and over even when they are misleading. When you revert, they put it back again or go somewhere else to add more nonsense. Feel free to revert them, but at least now you know what you are dealing with. CodeCat (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, will keep an eye out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Future Perfect at Sunrise! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Note

86.28.195.109 (talk · contribs) look suspicious too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

See this: [55]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

86.185.150.23 (talk · contribs) looks fishy.

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Special:Contributions/194.181.122.135 (I figured this is probably one of the people you keep an eye on, and xe edited one of your comments and subpages) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not a banned user

[56] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Clearly FPS was thinking it was me. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That must be it. Evil banned user, you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up my mistake. Apologies, but I think there must be a glitch in the software. I was very careful with my edit. I clicked undo, removed the IP comment and saved. I'm going to work in a sandbox and see if I can replicate the issue. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

What exactly do you mean "no she doesn't" for Erasmia Vranousi? Have you read the source? Assuming that you speak Greek. Her conclusion below:

"Συμπέρασμα : Ό Άτταλειάτης, γράφων περί τό 1080 καί ανα­ φερόμενος είς γεγονότα τοΰ 1079, παρέχει τήν π ρ ώ τ η ν μέχρι σήμερον γνωστήν καί μετ' ασφαλείας χρονολογημένην μνείαν τοϋ ονόματος Άρβανϊται, συνάμα δέ καί τήν πρώτην ρητήν μνείαν τοΰ ομωνύμου λαοΰ τής Βαλκανικής. Είς τά προηγούμενα κεφάλαια τής Ιστορίας του, οπού ό αυτός συγ­γραφεύς, άνατρέχων είς γεγονότα τών ετών 1038 - 1043, χαρακτηρίζει ώρισμένους πληθυσμούς τής Κάτω Ιταλίας ώς 'Αλβανούς, υπονοεί τους προσ­φάτως έκεϊ έγκατασταθέντας ξένους καί έπήλυδας (albanos) Νορμανδούς, ουχί δέ ομώνυμους πληθυσμούς έκ Βαλκανικής, τους οποίους άποκαλεϊ Άρβανίτας."

In the whole article she argues that Albanoi and Arbanitai where different groups. This is even the title of her work.

I am not saying that they didn't come from Albania. Of course they did. I am saying that Albanoi and Arbanitai where different groups. Since According to Erasmia Vranousi:

"TÒ Ονομα 'Αρβανίτης εϊναι κανονικός — κατά τους κανόνας τής αρχαίας, τής μεσαιωνικής καί τής νέας ελληνικής γλώσσης — τύπος ονόμα­τος δηλούντος (μέ τήν παραγωγικήν κατάληξιν -ίτης), τόν τόπον καταγω­γής. Εϊναι δέ Αρβανίτης ό καταγόμενος άπό τό "Αρβανον ή τά Άρβανα."

Please let me know if you need a translation.Othon I (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I can read it, thanks, and I remember reading the whole article some years ago, while checking up on some earlier discussion of the Arvanites article. Your logical error is that you are confusing words with the concepts they stand for. What Vranoussi is saying is that the words "Albanoi" and "Arvanitai" had different origins, not that the groups we call "Albanians" and "Arvanites" today were distinct. The word "Albanoi", she says, had some earlier meaning that had nothing to do with the "people of the Balkans" (i.e. with the group we call Albanians today). Those "people of the Balkans", i.e. the Albanians, were called "Arvanitai" by Attaleiates. Nothing in her argument has anything even remotely to do with a distinction between two different peoples within the Balkans, such as a group of "Arvanites" that could be distinguished from the Albanians proper. Quite to the contrary, throughout her article (including both its very title and the sentence you just quoted) she explicitly speaks of one people of the Balkans, in the singular, which came to be called both "Arvanites" and (after Attaleiates) "Albanians" synonymously. Nothing in her story implies any kind of distinction between those Arvanites/Albanians that came to migrate to southern Greece (centuries after the time she is speaking of) and those Arvanites/Albanians that remained in today's Albania. The conceptual distinction between these two groups is a product of the 20th century, not earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that you misunderstood me. I haven't said that they are not people who emigrated south from the geographical location that is today's Albania at that time The Theme of Dyrrachium. I am saying that the it must be written that the people who emigrated where the "Arbanitai" and not the "Albanoi" because according to Vranousi, "Albanoi" where the Normans of Sicily and "Arbanitai" the subjects of the Duke of Dyrrachium (Nikiphoros Vasilakis, Leo Rabdouchos, John Palaiologos and others) of the Theme of Dyrrachium, the people from the Balkans. Also, the emigration started from the 13th Century, straight after the Fourth Crusade and stopped around the 16th. This is when their assimilation started with the people living south. Everything is documented in the article. Also, at the time that the Arvanites got their modern national consciousness, there was not modern Albanian identity, in 1827. The modern Albanian identity starts slightly shown in 1878 and comes real with the National Awakening after the Balkan Wars. You know its like saying that the "Dutch" are "D(e)utch" or vice versa just because the both names are similar. Anyway, thank you very much for your time Othon I (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia in present-day English, not in the medieval Greek of Attaleiates. The people who lived in Albania in the middle ages, some of whom migrated south, are called "Albanians" in present-day English. It doesn't matter what Attaleiates called them back then. It also doesn't matter whether being "Albanian" corresponded to some "national consciousness" at any particular time. Albanians were an ethnolinguistic group, they are called Albanians in the modern literature, and the people who migrated south were part of that group, and are universally described as such in absolutely *every* source I've ever seen about the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so absolute because many sources just call them Arvanites. Tsitsipis etc. The article itself uses the "Medieval Greek" of Attaleiates as title. The people itself using as self appellation. One cannot neglect the accuracy of the name. it is like you say the "French" are "Franken". Please do not misunderstand my intention, I know that many nationalists from both Albanian and Greek sides have been using this article as battleground. I am not one of them, I just care for historical accuracy. At that time these people where called just Arvanitai. Whatever their ethno-linguistic background was. Vielen dank für deine zeit. Othon I (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Koine Greek New Testament Greek phonology

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

Thank you for your contributions to the Koine Greek page. I saw that under New Testament Greek ψ/ξ were rendered in phonemic transcription as /ps, ks/. Do you know if it is generally recognized that these are phonemes? If not, they will be changed to phonetic representation. Additionally, the page has always had υι as [yj]. Gignac (1976), Teodorsson (1977), Threatte (1980), κτλ. had argued that the diphthong υι had a tendency to lose its final element and merge with simple υ, hence confusion with υ, e.g υός for υιός. At the same time, Gignac also observed that confusion in the papyri of υι with υει/οιει, e.g. οιειῶι for υιῶι, also hinted that the diphthongal value was frequently retained, as υι only occurred before vowels and so would be perceived as a [j] glide. What do you think should be given here as the value of υι? Lastly, I don't know if you have ever done any work on the Medieval Greek page, but under the section on dissimilation of voiceless obstruents (e.g. [fricative + fricative]/[stop + stop] > [fricative + stop], επτά > εφτά, σχολείο > σκολειό, κτλ., I saw that the original editors claimed that the segments [kp, pk, tk, tp, θf, θx, xf, θs] became [xp, fk, θk, θp, θp, xp, θk, ts]. I did not know Greek even had these segments. [kp] I realized is possible with compounds involving εκ-, but the other ones seem questionable. When Browning (1982) and Horrocks (2010) discussed this sound change, they only included the combinations [kt, pt, sθ, sx, fθ, xθ, fs]. Or am I wrong that the segments originally included do not occur in Greek?

ευχαριστώ, Iotacist (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Iotacist

About /ps, ks/, I don't think it's necessary to change the // brackets to [] as you did here [57], since a notation like /ks/ doesn't entail monophonemic status – it can still legitimately be read as a phonemic notation of the biphonemic cluster. About υι, all I can offer is to recheck Horrocks (which, if I remember correctly, is our main source for those sections anyway), but that will have to wait until tonight. About the /kp/ clusters, it is well possible that the authors of that passage accidentally overgeneralized. IIRC, the article was once translated wholesale from a German equivalent, which was fairly knowledgeable along general lines but not well sourced about details, so I wouldn't be surprised about errors like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed ψ/ξ back to phonemic representation. Horrocks himself bases his reconstructions off of Gignac/Teodorsson, and states too that υι certainly became /y/. Apparently this even began in late classical times, and is seen in Teodorsson's rendering of conservative Athenian Attic c.350 BC (see pg. 164.) Assuming that the Judaean dialect is closer to Egyptian than to Attic, apparently in Egyptian /yi/ remained a diphthong in the popular variety at least till the 2nd cent. BC (see pg. 167.) υι is finally listed as /y/ for the 4th/5th centuries AD, but Gignac certainly had evidence for both diphthongal and monophthongal values in the 1st/2nd centuries AD (for our NT phonology.) We can essentially represent υι either way; I am perfectly fine listing both pronunciations as possibilities, but I'll see what everyone else wants for now. Also, while we're at it, could we please do something about this statement, "The realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of the Koine," which was entered over ten years ago when the page was first written, but was never sourced? Up till now, I have not read anything about the specifically Judean/Galilean dialect in regards to phonology. One of the old edits originally had ρ pronouncing as /ʁ/, which I am guessing is supposed to be a Hebraism/Semiticism. The editor claimed to have cited a website that was no longer active, so it was replaced with /r/. Unless we find reliable sourcing to claim to represent a specifically Palestinian accent, we should remove this statement. Iotacist (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Iotacist

RfC at Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

There is another RfC here. Your input would be welcome should you choose to weigh in. --Taivo (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for being a relentless vandal hunter. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion to move "String" to "String (disambiguation)"

In order to make way for moving Draft:String to article space to take the place as the primary topic, I've posted a proposal at Talk:String#Requested move 16 January 2017 to move the disambiguation page currently at "String" to "String (disambiguation)". Your input would be helpful to establish a common consensus on whether or not this move, or something else, should be done. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

Based upon your concern that one of the other articles named "string" might have a stronger claim to the primary topic, I've posted notices at Talk:String (music), Talk:String (computer science), Talk:String (physics), and Talk:Strings (tennis), to give the editors there a chance to weigh in. If you think notices should be posted elsewhere as well, please let me know, and I'll be happy to oblige. The Transhumanist 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

AN/I deletion

Hello FPAS, with great hesitation and reluctance I'm asking if you'd reconsider this [58]. As far as I know there's no requirement to have an account to comment on AN/I, much as I'd encourage everyone to create one. Even if you think the comment was in some way trolling or malicious, it was expressed calmly and if you disagree with it then either reply or (preferably) ignore it. Would you consider reverting your deletion? If you're unwilling to do so, I'll do it myself if I can work out how to do so without totally messing up the page.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Kim Dent-Brown: I reckon loads of people think it's this LTA. So I reckon loads of people will WP:DENY. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's that particular creep (although Vote X was previously also active in the same thread and they are from the same geolocation). I do think though it's the same anon that first created the thread, and who has been harassing Wtshymansky for months and got repeatedly blocked for it. We should treat any attempt of him reinserting himself in this matter as an instance of ban evasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I wish to god somebody would close that discussion up instead of letting it fester. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I second that. Couldn't you close it, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I could, and I have. How long before the first com plaint on my talk page? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Salt Kekistan

You recently deleted Kekistan as a hoax; it may be wise to salt the page, per the highly intelligent comments left by IPs on that talk page and per this Twitter feed. Lizard (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Thanks for deleting that by the way. Was a major pain in neck...so much so, my neck is still hurting! ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 10:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I expect this meme is about to explode given the early signs I'm seeing. If the news reports on it in the next couple days I'll come back and request an unsalt. I'll keep an eye on it in any case. It is related to the Pepe the frog, Kek, and Shadilay memes.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Aegean 6 nm.svg

About ten years ago, you created three instructive illustrations about the territorial water claims in the Aegean (6-miles, 10-miles, 12-miles). But I wonder whether some details are erroneous or based on some deeper information not explained in the description.

• In the File:Aegean 6 nm.svg, why is the Marmara sea differently bordered with 10 nm claim
• In the File:Aegean 10 nm.svg, why only the Greek border is represented with a 10 nm claim, but the Turkish one with 6 nm (Did Greece raise the claim but not Turkey?)

Arnd69 (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted oberservations :-) But I think those were both intentional. In the first case, IIRC, Turkey has raised its territorial waters to 12 miles on all its coasts except the Aegean, that's why the Marmara sea is showing the wider area (I'm honestly not sure about the short stretch towards the open Mediterranean in the south shown in the bottom right corner of the map). In the second case, the map is meant to show the current national airspace claims (the caption in the article was wrong); here, only Greece is claiming 10 miles, while Turkey has the same 6 miles in the Aegean and 12 miles elsewhere that it also claims on the surface. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Arnd69 (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The case at the ANI has been withdrawn. I owe you an apology for my failure to understand your arguments on the island article and for suspecting the worst about you. Still I do not understand the phraseology in your arguments but it is more than enough for me that the other admins found nothing wrong about them. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

The question about the Versailles Treaty is the closest thing I've seen to a legitimate question from that troll. Which just goes to show that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Language is unscorced? why?

fine if everything is unscorced then take unscorced and keep it Untill the translate is right??!? It's not a troll Some child's and be like that somehow you may have been removing translations just it's unscorced or what, it's that a reason why you unscorced this?

I am not sure what you mean. What you write is hardly understandable English. Are you sure you are a native speaker of English? Or are you a child, by any chance? Sorry for asking, but I am just wondering how best to explain these things to you when your command of English seems so sketchy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude I'm mostly translation user and plus some childs can be like this. We know and I know not every page can be messy and I accept your question I may have full understanding.

The native name of old Prussian language is: prūsiskan I though is: Prūsa I find out when you put this sign and I find you the "Prūsa" isn't translation of Old Prussian Language the real is prūsiskan all these native names can be sometimes unscorced for a reason every language is not need native names. But some need as unscorced.

Sorry, there is nothing more I can do for you. I'm afraid your English is not good enough to make useful contributions to this project. How about you try editing at the Simple English Wikipedia? You might find it easier there. I'd also ask you to remove the claim that you are a native speaker of English from your user page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I could look any language of wikipedia and im from United States

Closing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Can you please explain why you closed the discussion "Ref Desk removal (Drug mushroom" *and* deleted my response to TRM at the same time. As I explained in that response, I re-opened the discussion because I think that the discussion closure guidelines have not been followed. Specifically "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions ... requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear". Also, by closing the discussion I am afraid you appear to be condoning TRM's incivility in that discussion. A justification of your actions would be appreciated. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And condoning the incivility of those who personally attacked me. But I'm used to that, so I'm not worried. Just setting the record straight, why let a completely one-sided view of the debate get in the way of a good story, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is one virtue that is unfortunately much too rare among Wikipedians: know to shut up when it's time to shut up. Unfortunately, it's a virtue that's quite impossible to enforce: no matter how obvious it is that a debate has run its course, no matter how painfully evident it is that people are beating dead horses, if you close a discussion, those hell-bent on continuing any particular shouting match will find ways of continuing it (for example by simply taking it to a new page, as two of you have now beautifully demonstrated). I'll tell you what: I will not entertain you further on this page, but of course you can go on to a third page, complain about the way I handled your complaint about how your complaint regarding the handling of somebody else's complaint was handled, then you can watch the fights that are going to break out between two or three others during the discussion of that complaint, and the meta-complaints that will spark off from there. Of course, nothing in all of that will have any higher likelihood of leading to some constructive result than the original discussion had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to post a response. I think I understand your position now, even though I still do not agree with it. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Outside view? That discussion was the RefDeskers at their worst. TPaS isn't top of my Christmas card list (actually I don't have one, but let's imagine there is one), but closing that discussion was way overdue. Good call. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

too harsh

I object to this removal, and I strongly object to the explicit threat in the edit comment. It's your right to be tired of these discussions, it's your right to be tired of trolls, but you don't get to dictate how others discuss these issues. Thank you. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

See my comment in the thread above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Personally, I think we should close the bl**dy place down; then a whole demograph would have to find some real work to do :D O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

My condolences for some of the stuff you have to sort through.

Banedon (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Request

As a constant adminstator participant at RD/L could you please calm down and explain to this user as he seems not understand rules and why we are here at all. Thanks.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but due to past interactions, I doubt this user would particularly want to listen to me in a matter like this, so I think it will be better for me to stay out of the situation right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

But at least you are an admin with some power and authority. I think you know what to do when people do not listen to you and continue breaking rules. I wouldn't have asked you if you were a random ordinary user, and I really did not to escalate and open a request at ANI. The conflict, though, seems to be over.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Certainly power. By all means, open a thread at ANI, then we can discuss the claims of anti-semitism and allegations of Holocaust denial while we're at it. We can also clarify what "rules" you're talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

Please discuss before reverting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I_(pronoun)#capitalized

Benjamin (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. If you can't see why that addition is unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, there is no use trying to explain it to you . I looked at some of your editing on various pages and it is painfully obvious that you are simply not mature or intellectually competent enough to be a Wikipedia editor. In your own interest, you will need to decide to walk away from Wikipedia, or others will take that decision for you (by blocking you). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Greek IPA

I'm somewhat confused by your recent revert (of some other editor) [pços] is phonetically correct here (even though /pios/ might well be posited as an underlying/phonemic representation - My IPA sucks, but as var as I can tell ç in Greek is used for (some pronunciations of ) χ. Why would that be used in the pronunciation of ποίος? I suppose a "breathy" pronunciation might conceivably be interpreted as an "h/χ" there, is that the goal? ResultingConstant (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I know it's a bit counter-intuitive, but this is indeed the way it's described in the literature. The underlying /i/ (iota), when placed in a syllable onset, regularly turns into a consonantal glide [j]. When the preceding consonant is voiceless (like /p/), this glide is also devoiced through assimilation. The voiceless counterpart of [j] (voiced palatal approximant/fricative) is indeed [ç] (voiceless palatal fricative). Phonetically, this is no different from what happens in British English in a word like tune or cute, and we might just ignore the [ç] as an odd context-specific allophone of /i/, if it wasn't for the fact that, in Greek, [ç] also exist as a realization of an entirely different phoneme, /x/ (as you rightly mentioned). That's why it's represented as a sound segment in its own right in most transcriptions. You'll find a sample containing more such cases, sourced to the relevant chapter from Journal of the International Phonetic Association, in our article Modern Greek phonology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This Barnstar is for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This user has been awarded Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for his great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. SILENTRESIDENT 12:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kekistan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kekistan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Incivility is one thing. But really, that low?

Your incivility is well known. I have swallowed it all. But this? Really? But I used to believe you were an impartial Administrator who couldn't fall as low as this [59]? -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The term ethnic has no place in that article at all, if there is no mention about other Macedonian groups. But if it has to be in the article, at least let it be part of the link to the page which explains the people why there is that adjective. -- SILENTRESIDENT 22:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What, calling you part of a tag-team? That's not low, that's a simple, obvious statement of fact. Now go away and stop meddling with issues you don't understand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding...

...this, I had intended to zap the whole thing once the OP was blocked, but AIV was backlogged at the time. So thanks for taking care of it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Please come participate in the name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (again)

You're more on top of all this junk than I am, so I'm letting you know. I suspect Special:Contributions/Vergiotisa will need looked at, since they seem to be grinding some axe. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Your assertion that I am "picking fights for the sake of picking fights" looks a little bit like a personal attack and I would like to understand the reasoning behind it. Please be aware that repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. Siuenti (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Vote X

Just out of interest, how do you know that this is Vote X? I'm sure you're right, but these edits are not from any of the ranges specified here, nor do they correspond to the habitual behaviour noted there. --Viennese Waltz 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Several WP:BEANS-ish indicators that, taken together, are fairly strong. Also, IPs in the neighborhood of this London-located TalkTalk range have shown up before (see the various 92.* IPs listed on the abuse page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, thanks for the clarification. --Viennese Waltz 10:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How about these? The IP range looks similar. --Viennese Waltz 09:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

True, thanks. The first edits didn't quite make it clear for me, but the level of off-topic-ness in the latest ones does rise to the usual standards typical of V(X), I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Third party opinion

Dear, Future Perfect of Sunrise, could you please see and try to share an opinion of this edit on the talkpage of the article undergoing a candidature for GA status? This user constantly alleges me as disruptive on the talkpages of administrators, when I oppose the user for complete violation of WP:NPOV and with this justification the user tries to use Wikipedia for a propaganda of a specific view. This behaviour is long-standing and not very far from harassment. She even hided the objections of her edit on the talk page with a new template and even under a different title,[60] which I consider an abuse of the conversation. The objections were not about the Ancient Macedonian language, but were hidden in a template by the user with the explanation that they are more appropriate for this talk page, although they discussed her revert in a different article not concerning solely the language. So far no administrator confirms her allegations, but if you will, I won't argue for this edit. Thanks.--Judist (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Can you do something about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tarage/Editnotice&action=history

I suspect it's the same editor harassing me and creating pages without my consent. --Tarage (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

NVM, someone else got it. --Tarage (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright issue

I recall, from days long past, that you had a fairly exhaustive knowledge of what constituted free images and what did not. So I'm wondering if you know if this image is free. It's from something called U-news.net, and it's a screen capture from this youtube video. Here is the website itself [61]. Originally the image had the trademark (U-news) visible in the video but an editor removed it.

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Without an explicit licensing statement that the uploader could link to, this seems bogus. I've proposed it for deletion at Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a copyright violation actually. The video is uploaded under a CC license. See the description at the video where it says "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)." The video itself is original content uploaded from the official YouTube channel of the U-News Agency. We can verify this by going to the official U-News website and clicking on the YouTube link there. It'll direct you to that channel where the video is to be found. So there's should be no reason to believe that they themselves haven't provided the rights to this video already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But come to think of it, I don't get why it was uploaded under CC-BY-SA when it should have been uploaded onto Commons under CC BY. Don't know why that happened, but I revised the license now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason the creative-commons notice on the youtube page was hidden for me under a "show more" link, that's why I missed it. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we need to assume good faith and assume Volunteer Marek missed seeing the creative-commons notice too. It is a good thing other editors are around to correct such inadvertent little errors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see it for the same reason FP@S didn't see it. Thank you graciously for assuming the greatest of faiths.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused

I made two changes to the "city name changes" page yesterday, 17 May 2017. You reverted both of them, apparently without first reading the material you reverted. I read the (your?) "guidance" and most of the changes I made to the Morocco (where I live) and Spain (where I previously lived) pages comply with the terms you specified. For example, modern day Kenitra, Morocco was Port Lyautey, Morocco. That obviously qualifies as a "name change". In Spain, Mérida is a evolutionary development of the founding name "Emerita Augusta". The change, over nearly 2,000 years, is so dramatic as to constitute a "renaming". Please review my changes individually (city by city) as I intend to "fix" your revision for all but a few of my changes unless you can give me a valid reason as to why I should not. Finally, please keep in mind Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users. I am part of that community. CarlitosCorazon 06:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)