In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.
The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:
Uh, that again. Sorry, but I'll pass. I said my bit about it the last time it came up (see here. But even when I was trying to help him, that wouldn't stop that Operahome idiot going on insulting, threatening and stalking me (and Jimbo, and just about everyone else involved in the process) shortly later. I'm certainly not going to try to help this nutcase again. Fut.Perf.☼06:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Removal of reliable sources
It appears you have removed, not just the sources you contested, but also the ones you didn't had problems with, before. And on top of that, you removed the flag completely from the infobox even though it is clear that you do not have the support for this. Please stop immediately with these WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and you aren't going to win anything this way. Like I have told you a thousands of times, if you think there is a problem with the flag, take the matter to the talk page and seek consensus first. --SILENTRESIDENT14:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
There's been enough talk about this, the matter is clear. There is no consensus for the inclusion of this flag, and there was not a single good source. Of the outside editors who commented at the RS noticeboard, there was one (Only In Death) who asserted the sources were valid, but refused to engage with any of the arguments; one (Iridescent) who gave only a first-glance impression without being even aware of the issues (and who didn't follow up on the discussion when challenged); on the other side were two well-respected editors (Hoary and Cplakidas) who shared my objections against the sources. As for yourself, I've told you before I refuse to debate with you. In the future, when you find yourself in disagreement with me, I will ask you to find some neutral third-party editor to arbitrate the issue; we will both explain our arguments to them but there will be no direct argument between you and me, because I find having discussions with you painful. If you fail to do this, I will just revert your edits, no matter how many times it takes until you go away. If you don't like this arrangement, go to ANI. Fut.Perf.☼14:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Remember your strong objection of the usage of the term "Eastern Roman Empire" in the article Byzantine Empire, some years ago? Remember how you kept reverting me on that article every time I tried to insert the term "Also known as Eastern Roman Empire" but eventually the community, in your dismay, stepped in and restored the term. Now you are repeating this agenda on articles that use the Eastern Roman Empire's yellow flag, beginning with Mount Athos's use of it. I really want to believe that these are just mere coincidences and do not relate to the German Holy Roman Empire. It is well known that some editors, especially from Germany, are very fanatical about this. I really hope you aren't one of them. For your sake. --SILENTRESIDENT15:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Any answer I could possibly give to this would by necessity reflect on the state of your mental abilities and would be taken as a personal attack, so I'm biting my tongue. Now go away before my patience runs out. Fut.Perf.☼15:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, if I stepped in where I did, mate, in regards to the recent actions you took to block another user. I was only trying to help, but I might have been better staying out of it. Please accept my humble apologies. :-( GUtt01 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you're the copyright/nfcc expert around here. Any chance that the photo here could be used under fair-use for non-free content in the 2017_Unite_the_Right_rally article? The photo has become somewhat iconic, is probably notable by itself now and, at least in my mind (this is where I pause though) satisfies the two relevant NFCC criteria ("No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (...) Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Library Coordinator
Hi, As per your question I would like to inform you , (YES) I am Library Coordinator :) and that link what you refer will be updated soon. you can find me in here or here. regards--Déjà vu(Talk)16:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sock of Vote (X) for Change
Please see this rather odd comment (now removed, totally off topic, and I was not party to the thread). It was posted by an obvious sock of Vote X For Change, as he even quotes himself, and the two users interests and geolocations overlap intimately. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it was Newyorkbrad (talk·contribs) who once asked me if I would remove it (out of concern for the copyright issue), and I did it out of respect for him personally. I've never held a strong opinion on the copyright kerfuffle either way, and I think I originally put it on my page a good while before it became a public issue. I may well have been the first to use it in this way here. Fut.Perf.☼14:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Way back in the mists of time you added a semi-protection to the X3D page. I'm sure there were valid reasons at the time, but I now have the webmaster of the Web3D Consortium asking me how to get their specification article unlocked (after I pointed out some errors on their own site and one email led to another).
So what would it take to get the page unlocked? According to the logs it was locked about 7½ years ago, so I'd be surprised if the reason for the lock remained active. --BenM (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
We (Artificial Solutions, creator of the app Lyra Virtual Assistant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyra_(virtual_assistant) formerly Indigo Virtual Assistant) are obligated (though i cant say more, as I´m under NDA) to remove the name "Indigo" from this wikipedia page. Are we able remove all traces of "Indigo" or to delete this page all together? I´ve had a really hard time trying to remove this page, and would really appreciate your help! @Future Perfect at Sunrise:
IP question
Do you think 86.17.222.157 (talk·contribs) fits the Vote(X) pattern? I myself have no idea. But Quixotic Potato got blocked for making the accusation. Vote(X) is always trying to cause trouble, but I can't say if this is one of those times. I just thought you might have some intuition on it. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring on Hindustan
I need you to take a look at the Hindustan article and talk page. The reliably sourced intro is being constantly removed and replaced with original research. Neither of those sources support the chosen statement in the article.
I've backed away again to avoid further edit warring, but the article now contradicts itself. At least one source in the "other usages" section distinguishes between Hindustan and modern day India, yet the current intro unsupported by the two "sources" it cites, states to the contrary. Since it's in your area of editing and knowledge, I need you to comment when possible and check the sources on the intro. Neither of them support the statement. The POV pusher also raises eyebrows as he's got very little activity in the course of eleven years to suddenly pick an article to edit war over.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Future Perfect, I remember there was some sort of a talk page or SVG Help Desk of Wikimedia Commons but I forgot where it was. I remember you once came there when I was looking for help in editing a corrupt SVG file. I am looking for it again, as I found problems with another .SVG image file containing a strange semi-transparent circle, here: [1] --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤17:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That helpdesk conversation was here: [2]. As for the other file, I can't see the problem you mention; it seems to be rendering correctly both in the png preview and in the SVG original on my machine (Mac OS/Chrome). Fut.Perf.☼17:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A semi-green circle covering territories outside of Turkey, can be seen from my side. Epicenter of that circle appears to be an island in Turkey. My machine is Windows 10, and the problem appears both on Firefox and SVG editors, including Inkscape software: [3] --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤22:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now I see it too; wasn't that easy to spot. If you look at the SVG source, you'll find a line that says:
<circle class="highlight TUR subject" cx="242.125" cy="269" id="pthglF1S218P1" opacity="0.25" r="5" />
In relation to your revert here. Sadly I'm not familiar with most of the subjects, although I would have made the revert you did for the same reason. Doug Wellertalk11:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Question about Wikipedia rule appliance on Wikimedia Commons
Hi again, I looked but I couldn't find a clear answer of whether the Wikipedia's rules/conventions can be recalled when reverting vandalism/unconstructive changes to pictures in Wikimedia Commons that affect Wikipedia. When I tried to do so at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macedonia_overview.svg, I pointed out to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) but the Wiki-link isn't linked properly to the said page. First time I have to revert a rule-breaking picture change on Wikimedia Commons and I am not sure if I did right pointing out to a rule/convention that can't be found at Wikimedia Commons but can be found at Wikipedia. Since it was you the one who created the image, I thought I better ask here first. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤08:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
So, I'm not particularly enamored with the behavior, in general, of User:82.13.208.70, and I wouldn't be sad to see the back of them, but I think they've been misidentified as Vote (X) for Change. It is a London-based IP, but other than that, the behavioral information is not a great match.
The IP has been stable for about a month. VxFC does not retain a single IP for more than a day, often for only a few hours or minutes, even IF they aren't blocked.
VxFC has been active on other IP addresses over this time; I've never seen VxFC return to an old IP address repeatedly, except by random coincidence. If this were VxFC, she'd have been getting blocked at one IP address, showing up on this one for asking random Heraldry questions, then jumping to another random IP address to do her usual schtick, then jumping back here and all the while maintaining two different personae. That's just not her style at all. She's perfectly content letting you know its here. She doesn't want to hide, she wants to get people to admit she's right. Very different personalities at play here.
The style of communication does not match VxFC in the manner of complaints. VxFC doesn't addresses admins, rather they will address their concerns in the third person by accusing admins of bad action and VxFC has never (not once) reached out for help from anyone specifically (as 82.13.208.70 has now done twice).
Now, 82.13 may very well be trolling us, or at the very least, is trying the patience of the community with shitloads of inane questions, but this is NOT VxFC in my analysis. --Jayron3218:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, but, with respect, I think I'm still quite convinced that was VXfC. This [4] edit, using the "blockquote" strategy to insert some off-topic ramblings about Portuguese, is a dead giveaway. VX has posted that particular paragraph about "the claim that Castilian Spanish is closer to Latin than Portuguese..." dozens of times in all sorts of threads. Also, I'll have to correct you about their IP usage. They actually keep stable IPs for several months quite often, often temporarily overlapping with other IPs, including IPs from that Virgin range (compare for example 80.194.236.138(talk·contribs·WHOIS), which was blocked repeatedly between October 2015 and March 2017, and 156.61.250.250(talk·contribs·WHOIS), with multiple blocks during much the same timeframe). Fut.Perf.☼21:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, good catch then. She's getting sneaky. Thanks for the clarification. I must have missed that bit (it was not a thread that interested me). Definitely VxFC. Thanks for explaining and keep up the good work.--Jayron3204:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017 - DRN
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Hello, first of all I 'd like to point out that I DON'T have a single-purpose account. If you had loked more into my contributions, you would have found my additions to the Crimean Gothic Wikipedia and the word-list which I added to the Vandalic language wiki. I 'm also an admin at got.wikipedia.org and usethus username mostly there.
Second, could you explain to me why the first modern book ever translated into Gothic is not significant? To be honest, I think it is even more significant then the poetry which is translated into Gothic which is currently there. I can accept this decision of yours if you can give a good explanation, Onze Taal is an authoratuve source, so that's not an argument. I also don't see why Runaleiks would be of no value to add.
Well, the number of readable characters on that wiki certainly matches the number of its readers quite closely, so yes, "putting the reader first" sorta fits. Good thing we now have a living-languages-only rule for new projects on Meta, pity this one slipped through before it was implemented. Fut.Perf.☼05:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Nemroyo which you blocked before has started to make POV edits unilaterally again on the Assyrian people page, despite instructions on the talk page to bring up contentious edits there first. Could you warn him at least so he hears it again from an administrator? AntonSamuel (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The warning I placed on the talkpage goes to you as much as to him. Please read it again, carefully. Before you made your latest reverts, I would have expected a lot more explanation from you on the talkpage, and by explanation I mean: not 'ad personam accusations of bias, but concrete arguments about specific statements and why certain bits of content are or are not suitable for the article, based on reliable sources. Please explain yourself now. Fut.Perf.☼20:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:
This doesn't even vaguely resemble what a Wikipedia article is supposed to look like. For example, in this "referencing" format it is completely impossible for me to even attempt to evaluate whether the sources are good enough or not. Please actually familiarize yourself with the proper structure and formatting of a proper Wikipedia article, and fix this before resubmitting it.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fanum and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fanum, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you please cite the policy which you are relying on when you edited and then full protected Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Outreach/April_2018? If you can not do so please reverse the protection. This looks like a clear cut abuse of tools to enforce your POV. Thank you for your prompt attention to this issue. Jbh Talk20:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I stand by what I said at ANI and have nothing more to add to that. I'm not going to have additional discussions about it on this page, so please don't continue the thread here. Fut.Perf.☼20:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Good enough. Just attempting to exhaust avenues of dispute resolution on what I firmly believe to an abuse of your tools. Jbh Talk20:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Arbcom case filed
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Misuse of mop 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 on 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,
I am sorry it's come to this, but Swarm forced my hand before even letting me post on the existing arbcom case so... [6] --Tarage (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Changing the name of Othoni island
Hi,
I am from Othoni island. Please notice that the pronounciation of the name "Οθωνοί" in english is "Othoni".
οί in english is i. Check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek), Equivalence changes.
Hello. I guessed you are from the place, but that doesn't matter. I know Greek quite well, I know how the name is pronounced as well as you, and I know quite well how Greek names are transliterated in English. For Wikipedia, we have chosen a general transliteration convention, following that used by ISO, the UN, as well as the Greek and many other governments. It renders Greek "οι" as "oi". See Romanization of Greek#Modern Greek, as well as our Wikipedia-internal conventions at WP:GREEK#Vowel clusters. The section you indicated above, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek)#Equivalence changes, deals with a different matter, conventional Latin forms corresponding to ancient Greek ones. In Wikipedia, we have: Oinousses, Arkoi, Leipsoi, Fournoi, Schoinoussa, etc. Please stop editing against Wikipedia-wide consensus guidelines. Fut.Perf.☼07:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So, in case that someone needs info about Othoni, how it supposed to search for it in Google or Wikipedia?? By searching Othoni or Othonoi?? They are two different words... (I am not saying that you are wrong thow) but this whole thing it's totally wrong! At least we have to put the real pronunciation of each word in a parentheses. A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
About searching, we have WP:Redirects for that purpose, so readers will be directed to the correct article no matter which spelling they search for. But I guess you're right that it makes sense to include the alternate rendering in the lead. I've put it back there now, removing the Italian translation for the moment (that's something that can easily be covered in the "name" section and isn't really crucial for the lead sentence.) Fut.Perf.☼16:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The technique described somewhere further up in the thread, where you make a move and then fiddle around with the resulting redirect in order to prevent your opponent from reverting it, making vacuous edits on it just so it will have an edit history that will block non-admins from moving something back over it. Fut.Perf.☼04:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should generally not use administrative tools in situations where good-faith editors disagree about how a content policy should be applied and the administrator holds a strong opinion on the dispute. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk·contribs) is admonished for edit-warring in support of their preferred version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2018 ([7][8][9]). He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions.
Not really seeing quite the typical pattern there. Too many edits that seem sourced or otherwise on topic; this would be uncommon for VX, don't yu think? Fut.Perf.☼11:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, they later showed themselves. Another address in the same /19 block, see here, just self-identified as VxFC pretty obviously. Checking the rest of that range, here, almost all edits are to the reference desks. If you think I overstepped here, please let me know, you're quite experienced with this as well. Feel free to unblock the range if I have overstepped, but let me know what you think. I noticed that last edit today, coming on the heels of several different IP addresses from a fairly tight range. Also, VxFC can stay on topic or provide sources from time to time, especially when related to topics they like, such as UK-related questions or horology topics. --Jayron3217:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Marcela Grad, book Massoud: An Intimate Portrait...
Hello. on 1 October 2012, you tagged this book as
(possibly) an unreliable source, in article Ahmad Shah Massoud where that book was (and is) cited many times. Do you suspect it as unreliable? If so: why? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this was once an issue during a very heated dispute with a team of partisan editors on that article. The discussion is at Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud/Archive_2#Questionable sourcing and at Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud/Archive_3#Stop it!. It's a pity I never got around to cleaning up that article, after the disruptive tag-team was banned, but those disputes back then almost drove me insane and I never really found the strength to touch it substantially afterwards. The short answer is: yes, that book is definitely not a high-quality source. Fut.Perf.☼11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. As soon as I find the time (= not now), I'll get to that archived discussion you mention, and perhaps "touch [things] substantially" (but ofcourse I wouldn't mind if you would get into that 'cleaning business' yourself). --Corriebertus (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's quite different (the older upload was a painting). The new one is still suspicious, of course - a photograph taken with a Samsung phone in 2017, of a person who died in 1992, uploaded by a new account that made no other edits and gave no further explanation. It's obviously taken off some other, older photograph, and we have no information whether that is really the uploader's own work. Fut.Perf.☼06:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought I remembered this image from longer ago than when it was added. I suspect it is a press photo taken at Edmund Davies's swearing-in as a appeal court judge in 1966, because of his robes, his posed stance and his smile which suggests a happy occasion. He looks about sixty. However, I can't find this image online, or in The Times or The Guardian, and I don't feel I have enough to nominate it for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Your advice could be particularly useful
Hi Future Perfect, I pinged you in my proposal on Talk:Souliotes, but in case you don't get notifications that way, I wanted you to know that I was especially interested in hearing your opinion on whether the proposal would be helpful. You have taken up the role in many past years of cleaning up the casualties of nationalist warring on Balkan pages, and I believe you have more experience than myself and might be able to better tell whether it is a good proposal to quarantine the madness. Cheers, -- Calthinus (talk)22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
O.R.
Hi there! Our old friend is back and up to his old tricks. I'm planning to prepare an SPI but it will be difficult and necessarily rely solely on behavioral evidence. Do you have anything of your own to add in that department, perhaps something historical? It does appear O.R. has a long history of socking in clever ways to tilt disputes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm afraid I've had to deal with so many cases of longterm sockpuppeters I'm not quite sure which of them you are referring to right now. Can you refresh my memory? Fut.Perf.☼19:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh. I can't speak to any recent socking suspicions regarding this one. Certainly wouldn't put it past him, but haven't seen anything noteworthy recently. Fut.Perf.☼20:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Wiki-cookie
Having a party tonight and sharing a cookie with you for your help over the years
.
I hit twenty four thousand edits tonight and became a senior editor on Wikipedia. Thank for your help over the years. Ironically, your iron-fisted nature has actually made me a better editor. Haben Sie einen guten Tag! -O.R.Comms03:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Greeks in the Rep. Of Mac. reversed
Hello. Thank you once again for your message. Please be aware of that my contributions in the article of "the Greeks in the republic of Macedonia" have been reverted many times even if I put refs next to them. Thank you. Dourvakis (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, that's a bit odd, thanks for the notice. On the other hand, the quoted passage they reinserted was quite definitely VX, and the formatting idiosyncracy in doing so was also quite typical. Fut.Perf.☼19:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, on a second look, while the WHOIS address is in California, the geolocate result is still in good old London... Fut.Perf.☼08:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Project wide policy on "Formation" sections in infoboxes
Given the discussion on Talk:Greece I have browsed around and found some unfortunate things, like Armenia's "formation" back-projected not only to Urartu but also 2400 BC, Lebanon established as "Phoenicia" in 3200 BC allegedly. Some other infoboxes are a bit murkier like Russia so I opted against touching these for now. I can already smell reverts coming from editors from the relevant countries. Perhaps a wiki-wide policy on this should be elaborated, like was done with ethnic galleries? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
OberRanks
Wow. I chastised you for doubting this guy, but boy were you right. Thank you for all the research time you've put in to this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It's clear that I judged incorrectly back in April. You judged correctly, and I should have reconsidered the situation then. I can only apologize. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a relief to know I'm no longer the only person seeing the problem. Maybe there's been one good thing about the unblock, insofar as it forced me to do this whole documentation and so we now have a clearer picture of the cleanup that's ahead of us. But boy, it felt like wading through a cesspit; I really hate touching those nazi articles. Fut.Perf.☼07:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@DGG: The episode earlier this year was just the recent tip of a very old iceberg - he'd been fooling many people for years, and even if he'd been stopped in April there would still have been a huge cleanup to do. The failings lie with many people over a long period, so don't beat yourself up about it personally. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
It's probably of scant comfort for the hard work you've had to put in over the years to get this problem taken seriously, and for the hard work ahead of us cleaning up the mess - but if ever some recognition was deserved, this is it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Looks like Boing! said Zebedee beat me to my Barnstar of choice, so have this other one for your work here. You truly deserve two (at least) for this. Forging offline references is well-known problem of Wikipedia in academic circles, but I think you made great progress on it here.—Compassionate727(T·C)13:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - when you PROD one for deletion, maybe say "site banned for systematic falsifications" rather than "known for systematic falsifications"? Also, maybe don't notify him of each one, or his talk page will fill with hundreds (or even thousands) of them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, my feeling was that a listing on the user talk might be quite useful, actually. It's not as if that page is likely going to be needed for anything else very soon, is it? Fut.Perf.☼07:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Good point, I suppose it can help us keep a track. We can always clear them out once they're done - just don't want to the page to get too big to load. While I'm here I might as well think out loud, and I'm also wondering if doing mass AFDs might be more efficient with, say, 10 or 20 similar ones at a time? It's still 7 days, maybe including a link to the ANI banning discussion would be better for documentation, and it would eliminate the chance of individual PROD declines? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
One more thought (while my head is full of random ones this morning), it might be good if we could get a special speedy deletion dispensation for all articles he created without checkable sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how difficult it's going to be to get a special CSD, last time I remember such things people seemed to be making a lot of fuss around it, but we could try of course. I guess for the really unsourced ones PROD should generally work (but maybe I'm an optimist). For group AfDs, maybe a couple of the SS unit articles (like "Nth SS Police Regiment") might be a suitable testcase. Note that most of them are sourced to Yerger as a single source. That's one book I haven't checked (and wouldn't really want to touch with a ten-foot pole), but we know from Talk:1st SS Police Regiment that in at least one of these cases it was a fake. Fut.Perf.☼08:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, a speedy is probably out of the question - but it was just an idle thought really. Regarding the single-source Yerger ones, yes, maybe grouped in a single AFD with the rationale that it's a single untrustworthy source used by a chronic fabricator, as suggested. A good test case for that approach, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, yes, for now the PROD approach seems best - and I've boldly speedied a couple per A7 as I didn't think they even contained a credible claim of importance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
As to Germanic Proficiency Runes, I checked online and it was a real award, but a minor one. I would suggest making the name a re-direct to SA Sports Badge where it is briefly mentioned. I will try to find a RS cite for where it is mentioned there, when I have time, later tonight. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
No I cannot at this time, but frankly I don't see it needs to be a stand alone article. I have the same problem for a book on Karl Wolff page, although I did some removal there as to uncited parts. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I found an RS source for it in a book from my library at home and will add said cite to the SA Sports Badge page where it is briefly mentioned. Frankly, it was a very minor award. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
"Deletions" section
I started a "deletions" section to track AfD / PROD nominations:
The service record article I agree is not needed. Heydrich's on the other hand, I believe should be kept, but RS sourcing and clean up will be a pain and take time, and I don't have a lot of that right now to spare. I did check a cited source and changed text accordingly for SS and police leader. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I found that one quite dubious. Apparently there's only one reference to something named similarly in that Speer autobiography, in passing, but the whole story there is fishy for a number of reasons. Not completely made up by OberRanks, but quite possibly apocryphal anyway. Fut.Perf.☼15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm following up on the apparent Das Boot OR/fabrication (OberRanks added all of the content in the article relating characters to real-life crew members, all unsourced and I can find no sources, and I've removed it all). Looking at Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock, OberRanks added this lot. I've removed all of the unsourced material, and I'm wondering about the two sources on the remaining content - ""U-boat Registry of Officers", German Federal Archives, Entry: Lehmann-Willenbrock Heinrich Fkapt.01.12.44, 11.12.1911-18.04.1986 - U-5, U-96.", and "Alman, Karl, Der Landser. Nr. 123 = Ritterkreuzträger. Fregattenkapitän Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock. Pabel Verlag (1963), pg 23-27". Any thoughts on whether those sources can be checked? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's starting to look like the Das Boot crew connection is complete OR at best - as if he's examined the crew of U-96 at the appropriate time and has decided for himself that the characters in the book and film were based one-for-one on the real crew members. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like several of the articles about the individual U-96 crew members were all written by OberRanks, based on the same tenuous Das Boot notability, and I can find no checkable sources in any of them. I guess it's probably best to see how the current two AfDs go, and then nominate the rest for deletion depending on those outcomes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
And, this which says only that "The screenplay was inspired in part by exploits of the real life U-96".
Protection of user talk page
Hello, may I ask for you or any other admins to raise Protection of my Talk Page against anonymous IP editing? I am asking for admins directly as I dont kinda feeling like reporting my own user talk page to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection which seems to be more about articles, not user talk pages? Thing is, an IP or multiple IPs are persistently editing my Talk Page and I don't know how to stop that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)10:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I really have no recollection at all of that old case. No objection from me about unprotecting the pages, obviously. Fut.Perf.☼20:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, no problem... In case you were nostalgic for Macedonian issues, my guess is that we may have more edits on that topic soon due to the referenda. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, FPAS. I've seen your work as an administrator in the topic area of World War II in the past nine years, most memorably when we were addressing a war between editors that involved a troll, sock-puppets and eventual blocks. I recently joined discussions at the current World War Two Talk page and have suspended my involvement there for the foreseeable future. I'm inviting you to read the whole page, for future reference at least. All the best, -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing there's some kind of dismal nationalist subtext to the way a raft of dubious Serbo-Croatian sources all got rolled out to support "languages", plural; I don't suppose you know what it is and can summarise it, please?
I'd ask if every page pertaining to the Balkans has to be a complete nightmare but sadly I already know the answer to that one. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Heh, yes, there's got to be a subtext indeed. First, the three editors who turned up at the talkpage are all part of a notorious travelling circus: people who keep following each other around to antagonize each other in national teams. It's always certain Greek and Serbian editors lining up against certain Albanian ones, always taking up opposite positions in a kind of knee-jerk reaction. These three have been at it for as long as I can remember. It's massively tedious and stupid. The deeper subtext in this particular article is probably the fact that Albanians like to think of Illyrians as their ethnic ancestors, and our Greek and Serbian friends like nothing better than to deconstruct and downplay anything that might have the appearance of contributing to a coherent national narrative of Albanian origins. If it was up to some of them, then Albanians never existed in history, nobody notable ever was an Albanian before the 20th century or thereabouts, nobody ever had an Albanian name, and so on. So, by extension, everything that makes the concept of "Illyrian" look more fragmented, less like a coherent group, less like an ethnic unity, must be good and will find staunch support with the Greek and Serbian team (and obviously, the converse goes for the Albanian editors). Now watch them come here in flocks to protest about "personal attacks" and "ethnic profiling". Fut.Perf.☼07:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
A few words on my part. The Illyrian page is on my watch list. I saw that you placed a proposal in the talkpage [12] and i added a comment of support [13]. I also called for civility [14]. I have not engaged in antagonising anyone over the matter as my edits [15], [16] and comments [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] show when other editors have felt free to do so either on my talkpage [22] or in their edit summary [23]. Not all editing by the editors involved within this article is on the same par. As for other editors, their sources or behavior, they can speak for themselves. If my editing was not constructive toward improving the article or that what i have said here is wrong, please kindly point it out. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
You should make sure you clean everything up and put it back the way it's supposed to be. And really, I can't emphasize the inherent irony in removing inflammatory information about yourself when you're involved in an ArbCom case because you blocked someone who had been removing inflammatory information about themselves. Seriously, meditate on this. Crazynast22:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
(a) I reverted exactly to the state of the page last edited by you before the sock added their ramblings, so what do you want? (b) the point is it was harassment from a banned user. Banned users get reverted, like it or not. Now go away, people like you are not welcome here. Fut.Perf.☼22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Fred Bauder has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Fred Bauder is admonished for engaging in an edit war on his candidate's questions page. Future edit-warring or disruptive behavior may result in further sanctions.
For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.
Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private matter should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.
For your principled and consistent stance against supremacist extremism as well as denialism, from the Shoah to Srebrenica. Dealing with these sorts of problems as they arise on our project is a taxing and thankless task, but one that needs to be done even when most people are unwilling to do so. I believe I speak for many when I say you have my deep gratitude. Calthinus (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Merry
Happy Christmas!
Hello FPaS,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk20:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Currently there is a draft on conduct regarding nationalist editing see Wikipedia:Nationalist editing. Due to your experience with handling or interacting with editors over many years your advice and input would be much appreciated. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I recently added some suggestions to the ongoing RfC for Macedonia. I added them in the list you have created, replacing the [Alternative proposals to be added?]. I'm not sure if that was the correct place to put them, or if they should have been put further down and voted on. Some people have been suggesting alternatives but only put them in the discussion section further down; please let me know if you want them put in the discussion section instead. I interpretted the [Alternative proposals to be added?] bit as the place for alternate suggestions, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not familiar with RfC etiquette, sorry for any inconvenience. --Michail (blah) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Future Perfect. It's good to see an editor who is very familiar with the past issues being active at WT:MOSMAC and the plans for the RfC. So far that talk page doesn't mention the word Arbcom, and I hope that those who are active will ensure that Arbcom's motion is followed. (Details can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Macedonia RM):
Motion (June 2018)
The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.
Forgive me if this point has already been stated at length by the people working on this. I recently left a warning for an editor who was busy making premature changes, with no apparent consensus. The literal wording of the above motion might suggest that no changes can be made to anything for at least thirty days, but I'm not sure if that is the best reading. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, personally I feel the current Arbcom injunction is a bit overkill, and I personally wouldn't mind us all silently ignoring some of its strictures. The main page move of the Republic of Macedonia article is already being discussed in a regular RM, which will have overwhelming consensus to move in a few days' time (or in fact any time now, if anybody wants to close it). Obviously that'll be against the letter of the Arbcom injunction, but seriously, who cares? The point is, it's all going with far less fuss and less contention than the arbs may have expected. Everything is going amicably and consensus-based so far, and as long as that's the case, common sense says to allow it to proceed. There'll be far too much of a sense of urgency about just getting things updated in a timely fashion for people to want to wait for another month or more. As for premature edits, I've also reverted a few here and there, but mostly those that were just clumsy or simply wrong (like breaking file links, or making changes retroactively in an anachronistic fashion); some other articles have already adopted the newer naming without anybody making a fuss. Fut.Perf.☼22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Accession of Macedonia to NATO article
Hi there, I'm wondering what we should be doing at Accession of Macedonia to NATO? We've been reverting edit after edit adding in "North" for the last week, despite pleas and explanations on the talk page that this is part of a larger discussion that should wait for the RfC consensus. Is that the case we should me making? If we are waiting, then I'm wondering whether we can get an admin to semi-protect (and maybe move protect) the article? If not, maybe you can explain the situation on the talk page? Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞03:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There are pagemoves and disruptive editing going on all over the place and its a mess. I had a strong feeling this shit was going to happen. Is there a way of making it more clear to editors on Macedonia related topics that things should not be touched until MOSMAC is updated in a few weeks time. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you re: Sashko1999
I feel very foolish that I did not notice the TBAN had been made indefinite, all that time wasted for what should've been a simple indef. Thanks for looking into it. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that I consider your you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC) at Talk:North_Macedonia#Prespa_Agreement a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. -- Stevepeterson (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact, another thing you definitely need to do is learn some more English. I've now seen you write "the North Macedonia's government" at least three times in a row, so I find it hard to believe it's just a one-off typo. You were really thinking that was proper English, weren't you? I strongly recommend you keep out of all discussions about what is or isn't good English usage in the future. Fut.Perf.☼20:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that I am filling an arbitration case for the personal attacks and insults that I repeatedly received from you. - Stevepeterson (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
While the IP re-adding the case to WT:A/R was clearly inappropriate, could you please contact the clerks to take action over this sort of thing in future? The committee would prefer that editors left this kind of action to the clerks. If nothing else, doing this yourself gives the editor something else to yell about. GoldenRing (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that IP? [26]? That was VXfC, I usually revert and block them on sight no matter on what page. I'm sure I've done it on Arbitration pages a couple dozen times before. I really don't care what else that banned pest may find to yell about. Fut.Perf.☼16:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at this guide "Most portals these days are highly automated, with whizzbang components that do various things. For these it is most convenient to use semi-automated methods of construction." and "When you are ready for the next level, there is an alpha-version script in development that speeds the process further. It's how I've been able to create 3500+ portals. It's operational but buggy, and must be used carefully because it has an incompatibility with another specific script that results in endless loops if you don't have the other script turned off. Let me know when you are ready to take the plunge." Is that a violation of bot or other policy? [27] Perhaps WP:MASSCREATIONLegacypac (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with bot practices; you'd probably get some more knowledgeable opinions elsewhere. Personally, I'd prefer dealing with the issue on the content level – automated design being simply an objectively bad idea with poor results, independently of whether the specific use of tools is within the letter of the law. Fut.Perf.☼21:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Is User:Lepourquoipas a WP:SPA? I believe so, but I don't dare to tag because it could be interpreted as a bellicose act. Also, I have another question, and that is: do you know if some editor formally requested the North Macedonia RfC? There is this notion that "we didn't have enough time" to formulate the RfC properly and "we had to start it" but I found no evidence of this outside of the editors already engaged in the drafting of the RfC. I'm not sure what fuels this impatience. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess i am mentioned here so I have to say something.. I have been editing anonymously for some time. I opened an account because I wanted to edit something on Jean-Baptiste Charcot that I like a lot. My edit was reverted and I had a short argument here with the person that changed it. Then fell on this debate on Macedonia which interests me for a long time since I am from the Balkans. I don't know what else to say. From the way you write FlavrSavr I understand this whole thing is a bit heated. hahaha --Lepourquoipas (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want to go into the history particularly, and for all I knew the entire dispute could have been over the price of the tour guides :) just my luck! People do get invested over such tiny things here though don't they. Cheers, made the edit. ——SerialNumber5412911:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
At User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal I set out why I think it would be helpful if a small group of editors of differing views worked together to draft an RFC which could establish a broad community consensus on which portals should exist and which should not. This is one of 4 invites, through which I hope to establish group of 5 editors to collaborate on ths one task.
Hello. An edit you removed about two months ago on which people Italians are related to has recently been restored. I took it out again linking your edit as part of my summary. Might be worth keeping an eye on it, and it might also be a good idea if all editors realise that the action taken was an admin measure (which I presume it was given previously I was on one side and other editors were on the other). This was my edit but I got unwittingly logged out somehow. --Edin balgarin (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. To clarify, I certainly continue to support that removal, as I've explained elsewhere, although I have to say I find your own argumentation in that matter quite unconvincing. Fut.Perf.☼19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you referring to the argumentation entered in the edit summary you read? If so then the point about the Hungarian friend I have is true but the point was meant sardonically. My actual points on the matter are better listed in Talk:Maltese people. Did you mean that THOSE points were "unconvincing"? Because if so, I'm only too happy to read your review of them. --Edin balgarin (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my mistake, I was removing the contribution from a banned IP user just below yours and accidentally included some lines too many. I'll restore them in a moment. Fut.Perf.☼18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100023:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, the removal of the banner in the North_Macedonia#Macedonian_nationalism section is a clear vandalism. This type of Macedonist vandalism goes beyond Wikipedia and includes damages of random objects of Bulgarian heritage such as church inscriptions.
No. Please read up on what is not vandalism. Disagreeing over whether a certain image is relevant to a section in an article is not vandalism. I personally agree that it isn't very useful there, and it's certainly not usefully encycopedic to force it into the article just to get your favourite POV point about historical Bulgarian identities across (a typical WP:COATRACK attempt, because that's not what that article is about, and the Bulgarian aspects have quite enough coverage in the article as is.) Also, please don't plaster my talkpage with images that have absolutely nothing to do with this disagreement. Fut.Perf.☼09:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW, can you also please change your signature? I cannot for the life of me read the dark text on dark blue background, so I wouldn't know your name if I hadn't looked at the page history. You might want to look up Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors for some useful hints about how to make things readable for everyone. Fut.Perf.☼09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The images I posted here were to describe the type of vandalism, which aim to remove anything associated with Bulgaria or Bulgarian ethnicity. I can't see why you would remove the image, when it corresponds with the prose in the section. Thanks for the signature advice, I agree on this and would look for sth more readable. gogo3o09:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I was scrolling through WP:ARC and found that User:Gogo303 opened an arbitration case about you. I noticed that this user did not notify you. It looks like a mere content dispute, but wanted to let you know what's up. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both for the notifications. I didn't see VX piggy-backing on this case yet (which talkpage?), but of course they will eventually. Fut.Perf.☼17:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
Thank you for your hard work on with the 2019 Macedonia Name RFC. We finally rewrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and we really could not have done it without your initial draft of the guidelines. You were a huge help in getting us to consensus, but quite obviously you did so much more! Your leadership throughout this RFC was invaluable. I am glad to have had the great pleasure to work with you! –MJL‐Talk‐☖02:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Consonant feature templates
In 2014, you made a strong case against the consonant feature templates. Unfortunately, nobody followed your opinion then, and the discussion was consequently closed as “no consensus”. I now came across another reason for subst'ing those templates: Their wording is necessarily so generic that it has become awkward like legalese. In some cases, they even introduce silly, inappropriate alternatives in the text, such as at Nasal palatal approximant#Features, where the absurd option is offered that the approximant could be a stop. Do you think that offers a chance for reopening the TfD? ◄ Sebastian12:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC) (Minimally reworded 13:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC))
Oh, they are still around, are they? Too bad. Maybe we should just go around substing in the articles, pointing the the guideline, and then just edit whatever needs local improvments. I'm not sure reopening that centralized discussion right from the beginning will be that useful. Just go ahead and do the right thing, I'd say. Fut.Perf.☼12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I fear, too, that it's unlikely to be useful. In my view, these procedurally centralized discussions introduce a systemic bias: While they facilitate participation for editors specialized on a given procedure, they create a bureacratic hurdle for people specialized in the subject matter. Oh, well, I'll just subst them when I notice problems, as in the above case. ◄ Sebastian13:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Our old friend
Asking for your opinion on this. Got my Spidey-sense tingling, but I'm not confident enough to block straight away. --Jayron3211:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
BILL1, an unexperienced editor, is removing non-Greek names from articles of places that are in Greece and in the same time is adding Greek names to articles of places that are outside of Greece. Since you are experienced in these matters, it would be of help if you gave BILL1 links to relevant Wiki policies regarding place names. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Reverting an edit
You recently reverted an edit of mine in the Skopje article, noting "please stop mechanically putting "North" into all possible positions; this is not what was agreed on.". I want to say that in the article there wasn't a single instance of "North Macedonian" before I added it, or now after you reverted it. I don't add it mechanically, I manually checked every instance of "Macedonian" and I added "North" in less than 10% of the cases, when I deemed it appropriate, boldly. What we agreed on is using "Macedonian" when concerning anything ethnic- or language-related, and most of the time when we refer to nationality (and I personally never added "North" when there was a reference to nationality). "Macedonian" is strictly forbidden for state-related entities, and when it comes to adjectival uses, either can be used, depending on the context, as there isn't a clear trend used in reliable sources (I took that as a mandate to use "North Macedonian" in adjectival cases that were state-related, since that's most natural and clear for the reader). I now see an attempt (not from you, but generally) do disregard the new guidelines, and to ditch "North" from wherever possible. Like I said, in the Skopje article, "Macedonian" is used in ever single instance, no matter the context. There was a historic agreement, this is now a non-issue, we have a new name and people don't have to fight about something so trivial anymore. All I am doing is trying to protect it. Please, if there is some misunderstanding and I have violated the guidelines correct me, but I don't think I have. --Antondimak (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
What you did was you inserted "North" in every single instance where you could get away with it, i.e. every single instance where according to the guideline it could optionally be used, not leaving a single one with plain "Macedonian", thus roundly and deliberately ignoring the stipulation that both forms should be allowed in these contexts, as well as the recommendation that the choice should be done on the basis of efficient writing and considerations of context/ambiguity. This is unacceptable. Fut.Perf.☼10:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mamnage to respond before the discussion was archived. What do you mean when saying I added North wherever "I could get away with"? Yes, I specifically added it where the guidelines stipulate, and to remind you, the article in its current state doesn't have a single usage of "North Macedonian", plain "Macedonian" is used not only in all ambiguous cases, where you can stretch the lines to make it acceptable, it's also used in all cases where the guidelines spefically prohibit the use of "Macedonian", such as in state-related entities. I find it hard to believe that it is I who tries to put "North" in all cases, when I again changed less that 10% of the adjectival references, in an article that didn't include "North Macedonian" at all. Do we even have a renaming deal if we practically rename nothing? --Antondimak (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear. Do I have to explain it again? No, you didn't change it "where the guideline stipulates", you did so wherever the guideline allowed it. I really don't know how I break this down even further. There are contexts where the guideline exclusively prescribes form A, there are contexts where it explicitly allows both A and B, and there are contexts where it only allows B (and C). What you did in [29] was: you left form A in exactly those and only those cases where you had no other choice, because they were of the kind where only A was allowed, and you changed to form B in exactly those and all those cases where the guideline allowed both. That's not "less than 10%", it's 100% (relative not to the total number of references, but to the total number of references of that specific type). Do you understand that now? Edits like that, while marginally within the letter of the guideline, are certainly not in line with its spirit and not conductive to consensus editing. You are really just like the mirror image of that other guy, who was going round multiple articles misquoting the guideline and changing things in the other direction (from B to C). Is it really that difficult for all you people to get this into your skulls: The guideline, for better or worse, allows both forms, so we all have to develop a certain measure of tolerance towards forms other than those we personally prefer, and make it a rule to change things only when there's a good reason for doing so. The guideline also gives some recommendations for when it may be useful to prefer one form over the other ("shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context"). That recommendation will of course favour A throughout that particular article, because the country is firmly established as the discourse context throughout it. Fut.Perf.☼07:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I would argue the same for the other side. It goes against the spirit of the guideline to use plain "Macedonian" in every ambiguous instance, and the fact that the article is about a city in North Macedonia isn't enough to completely ditch the other form for supposed simplicity. Anyway I will not push further, but I will note the difference in how the Greek Macedonian issue is handled, as plain "Macedonian" is used much more rarely in articles concerning the South, compared to those concerning the North. --Antondimak (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Is that a problem? If we are to doubt things like that then I am afraid that we are seeing a very openly biased Wikipedia. Luckily I don't believe Fut.Perf. to be an extremist so I don't think he would doubt those edits as you did. --Antondimak (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your time looking into these cases.
Many people have thanked me for my edits.
But there are for some reason some who seek to vandalize, harass, and revert me; simply because I write about things that does not conform to their point of view.
some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against.
These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed.
Nick is just a really bad person.
At this point, I believe I need administrative help.
Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia.
I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least.
His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.
People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view. They intend to ban me, and I need support. I have reached out to those who have appreciated my edits. Please do not let these bullies get their way and further censor the internet.
I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse.
I trust you as an admin. Thank you very much for your time and support on this.
Alexkyoung (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't quite figure out the chain of template transclusions here. Not sure where and how to edit this. Maybe somebody more familiar with the technicalities of those pages can help out. Fut.Perf.☼19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Fut. I noticed in the block log that you have re-blocked Fram on their own request, "to prevent accidental postings by mistake". We all know that such an accidental posting would/might lead to a global WMF ban, so that makes sense. But why did you indeff? Fram's original WMF block (last lifted by me) was for a year. Did they ask for an indeff? Just wondering. Bishonen | talk08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC).
Oh, right, didn't even think about the duration. But of course it's an "indefinite-is-not-infinite" indef, and I'm still in hopes something about it might change well before that year is up. Anyway, there'll no doubt be lots of us around and happy to lift it on 10 June next year, if it comes to that (and if we haven't all resigned by then). Fut.Perf.☼08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If indeed there are any admins left by then, yes. However, an indef means the username looks different on the page, assuming you have a ... thing ... a script or whatever, that conveniently makes blocked usernames show up struck-through, and indeffed usernames struck-through and italicized. So it sort of shocks the eye: suddenly, visually, Fram is showing up as indeffed, perhaps making for reactions like 'Serve him right — I wonder if that was ArbCom or the WMF?' But people can check the log, certainly, like I did. Bishonen | talk11:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC).
You should probably include blocking TPA on this block, since that is explicitly the type of edit that Fram just violated their ban with. Also note, the original block expiration is 2019-06-10T17:41:26. — xaosfluxTalk13:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, as for your "dial it down one or notches", I certainly! will, by retiring from Wikipedia. Thanks for the year/s of enjoyment. Thanks to all. --LLcentury (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise! I intend to clean up the somewhat messy article Mysian language I have noticed "Palaeolexicon" among the external links. The cite is run anonymously, the Disclaimer only states: "Palaeolexicon is project [sic!] based on the voluntary work of various individuals. Every single resource that keeps this project up and running is based on the goodwill of those individuals." What is worse, none of the entries are sourced. I am not yet fully sure about EL criteria (which is why I ask you), but this looks like a case of WP:ELNO, right? –Austronesier (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Laison Offices to Embassies colorisation fix in .SVG image
The problem is, the Republic of North Macedonia should have a blue color, not red, since Greece and North Macedonia upgraded their Laison Offices to full-fledged Embassies in Skopje and Athens respectively, in line with the Prespa Agreement. I would like to do it myself but problem, it is .SVG and I can't edit this filetype.
Can you edit a large plaintext file in a text editor? If you download the original .svg file and open it in a text editor (watch out, it's quite large, so some editors might have difficulties opening it), you will find one line that starts with <path fill="#ffaaaa" That's the hexadecimal color code for a pinkish color, and since it's only used once in the map, that line must be it. You will find that most other similar lines will have a color code of #3771c8 instead. That's a shade of blue and must be the darkish blue used for most countries. If you change the #ffaaaa to #3771c8 in that one instance, that should do the trick.
A brand new account[42] with few edits are edit-warring over multiple articles and are making suspicious edits resembling banned Meganesia. They edit on Meganesia's favourite topics, like plant species (e.g. Prunus scoparia, Prunus) like banned Meganesia (see his edits on plant species), linguistics, etc. and they are restoring Meganesia's edits. See Meganesia and his removals of an ethnolinguistic description: [43][44] and the new account's removals[45][46]. See Meganesia and his twist on a sourced content regarding ME [47] and the new account's changes [48][49]. The suspected account did not mention these changes on his edit summary, probably in order to avoid scrutiny + the editor has become more active after the banned editor's multiple unblock request have been declined[50][51]. What a coincidence, please check the dates. It looks like a WP:DUCK case to me. Especially their interest to plant species and restorations of the banned editor's previous edits are quack. Puduḫepa06:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, saw it. I'll need some time to look through this – it seems pretty clear this is not a new account, it's just a matter of whose sock it is. It would be great if you could also file this officially as an WP:SPI case in the meantime. Fut.Perf.☼07:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to sincerely thank you on your edit on the Proto-Albanian language page (reversion to a year ago). As you rightly stated, the past few edits have been horrendous and simply unconstructive to the article.
May I request unprotection of Sogod, Southern Leyte. According to logs, the page has been semi-protected for more than eight years. The protection log of the article is too short to warrant indefinite semi-protection. —Jencie Nasino (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for flagging that one up. Yes, the semiprotection was installed because of some rather determined sockpuppeting on that page, but that situation is no longer current. Fut.Perf.☼10:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Horse knobs. Message added 09:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
As far as I can see, this article wasn't tagged for speedy deletion when you chose to delete it. I'm not arguing with the grounds for your deletion but I hope that the lack of a notice to the article creator, Geo Swan, was just an oversight your part. LizRead!Talk!23:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Uhm, there is no requirement for prior taggings and notifications when doing speedies. I just happened to come across this page, which was an obvious candidate for deletion because it contained no tangible claim of notability. This was just a guy who served as a soldier and a war and got killed along with thousands of others. Fut.Perf.☼06:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Ulster counties: "loaded" colour choice
Orange and green: now pink and green
You may not be aware of this but your choice of colours for the map of Ulster in Ireland is at best unfortunate. The colours you have chosen are very loaded. Orange is strongly associated with the Orange Order and Ulster unionism, green with Irish republicanism. So what in effect you have done is to show two thirds of Ulster as a Unionist fiefdom and one third a Republican fiefdom. Neither are true: opinion polls show that the identities of people in Northern Ireland are about 35% Unionist, 32% Nationalist and 33% none of the above. It would be tactful if you could to revisit, please. Safe colours would be purple and bright yellow (with the rest of Ireland continuing to be shown as pale yellow). --Red King (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, as far as I can see, I didn't actually create that map. Mine was only the base map, File:Ireland complete.svg, from which this one was derived. The author responsible for this colour choice seems to have been User:Hogweard. No blame on you, as the presentation of the authorship and upload history on the file page was easy to misread. I don't personally have any opinion on the colour choice. You could take it up with Hogweard, or just propose a new version yourself if you know how to edit SVGs. Fut.Perf.☼17:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, I had trouble working out who did what. Best if I contact Hogweard rather than risk messing it up. --Red King (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
As the original protector, do you have a reasonable belief Shawn Hornbeck (redirect) still requires a full protection? There's a currently outstanding edit request that, while I have no issue fulfilling, could be avoided now that we're over a decade from the original event. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. I had no recollection of that case at all. Given it's been over ten years, I suppose there's no reason to keep the protection. Fut.Perf.☼18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Sectioned comments
That particular wheeze was slipped through four years ago, AFAIK without discussion. In (vague) defense of the current committee, the fact that they've been doing it for four years without people complaining is a reasonable precedent by normal Wikipedia standards; bear in mind that that's before most of these people were elected, so this is literally the only way of doing it they've ever known. I personally think this "sectioned discussion" approach is a total crock of shit wherever and whenever they do it, but given the high profile of the Fram case, if they didn't follow their own precedents someone would no doubt start whining about "abuse of process". ‑ Iridescent19:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I used your cases
I used your cases as an exemplar of prior community and Arbcom norms [52]. I am letting you know here because I did not want to link your name in the text but I would feel like a dick if I did not let you know. Jbh Talk23:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask something? I am not exactly sure if anyone here is following the developments in the East Mediterranean and Turkey's illegal actions, but in case you do (and I assume if someone does, it is most likely you), could you tell me what do you think about Mavi Vatan's inclusion to the article of the Aegean Dispute? This is an official concept adopted recently by the government of Turkey, which raises the number of Greek islands the sovereignty of which Turkey is challenging, from the number of 18 to the breathtaking number of 1.000+ islands. I am not very sure if this is early for inclusion to Wikipedia or it is just too extreme Turkish POV that it cannot even be taken seriously at all. And there is one more issue: Turkey's escalation of claims seems to be no longer fitting an article such as the Aegean Dispute and falls more, and even more, with every day that passes, to articles like "Turkish Nationalism / Turkish Irredendism". At this rate, since Turkey's claims on Greek islands are more about domestic purposes (hunting for votes) and less about actually wanting to conquer these areas, which is why I do start believing it fits more into Turkish nationalism. Your thoughts? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)17:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I usually do try to keep track of the Aegean issues, but I have to admit I haven't come across this "Mavi Vatan" concept. Any reliable sources about it? The problem is, I don't really trust either Greek or Turkish news outlets when it comes to describing these issues, so if there really is some new policy, we'd probably have a hard time finding out what its actual contents and legal implications are. Fut.Perf.☼18:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
P.S. A brief Google search shows "Mavi Vatan" was the name of a naval exercise in February. What's the supposed "official concept" behind it, and how does it differ from the older policy? Any sources for either those "18" or "1.000+" islands? Fut.Perf.☼18:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
But in any case, I won't be much inclined to have any further discussion with you about it, as long as you keep butchering the Imia/Kardak article with your clumsy, ignorant and incompetent POV editing. You really need to back off from these topics, completely. You are personally unsuitable to edit them, and will have to be topic-banned if you don't keep your hands off them voluntarily. Fut.Perf.☼18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear nothing has changed from your side. The article is on my watchlist and will remain so. We may have our differences in POV, but at least I have tried to work my way with you, without letting past disagreements get in such a personal way as you do. Wikipedia is a collective project and it is required that everyone here learns to work on the grounds of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVILITY. Given your unfortunate response and reaction (which is more unfortunate given your position), I guess there is no point in ever coming to your talk page at all anymore. I guess the discussion will have to be opened in a relevant talk page instead, with editors who do not put their feelings above the project's importance. I am sorry for bothering you and don't expect more replies from me anymore. You just killed any chances that we'd mend our troubled relationship. Have a good day, sir. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)19:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I am actually reporting Shkarter1985 for the incident that were involved with users. However, I don't know how to report this user because he is slandering Wikipedia and talks ill will about the users that dealt with him (including Trivialist). I tried my best to describe the incidents that involved the user in question. I am very sorry if I was ranting, I was upset by Shkarter1985's actions towards other users. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. , re Wumbolo - good call stopping him, and I think we're being trolled, frankly. I think perhaps a longer block might be the consensus view based on the RFAR. Guy (help!) 21:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Capital city link
Yeah, I just noticed that some of the Capital cities had capital cities links in them, so I figured I should add it to all of them , but I’ll stop doing it now I guess. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
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.
You won't believe this, but I was just in the middle of crafting an ANI thread to investigate this exact issue. While I was putting together my evidence, I noticed you just blocked them. I've had my suspicions for some time. Just curiously, without delving into WP:BEANS territory, what was the give-away for you? Was it the edits SR made in August 2019? --Jayron3221:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. But yes, beans, I'm afraid... Certain idiosyncracies, plus of course the overall habit of speculating on the refdesks. Fut.Perf.☼21:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I had a similar thought "this sounds a lot like StuRat" on ~November 11. (I think it may have been the reply to the chess question on RDC that first made it click.) And after I noticed the connection the more I saw their replies the more I wondered if I was right. Although the only thing I did was check to see for a blatant connection. I guess this is too obvious to be beans, but at least they didn't repost their August replies one of the things I checked. (The other thing I checked I won't give away because it may cross over into beans territory.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
I justed wanted to know how you were doing. You haven't responded to a lot of people's pings. You okay? The reason I ask is because when I first started editing Wikipedia, it was pretty hard to deal with all the criticism I got early on from admins. Honestly, typing this seriously makes me cry. You were one of the few admins on this project who was genuinely nice to me when I first started out. I can't even begin to say how many times I looked at the Prespa barnstar you gave me every time I felt like I should just give up. I'd look at it and had to think I couldn't possibly be as bad as people said because Fut. Perf. certainly didn't think so. I don't know what to say here, but I hope you hear me. Things recently haven't exactly been easy for me to watch.. –MJL‐Talk‐☖05:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for asking. No, I'm fine. About once a year or so the mob is out for blood; I've come to be sort of used to that. I usually stay away from those kinds of threads once the hysteria has reached a certain level. Fut.Perf.☼07:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. If it is not too much to ask, would you mind apologizing to SilentResident about how things happened and such? It'd probably go a long way for helping people move on and recover from this incident. –MJL‐Talk‐☖19:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Your concern is appreciated, but I'm afraid the answer is no. If I were to explain that further, I'd probably have to say things that would upset some people even more, so for the moment this plain "no" will have to do. Fut.Perf.☼07:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well FPaS. MarnetteD|Talk20:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, hope it isn't a bother, but we have this discussion ongoing [[53]] -- the input of someone familiar with Balkan Slavic philology might be useful. Do you have an idea on the matter, or know someone here who might? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think Nonmaligned Nations/StuRat is being treated fairly
(If he is indeed Stu Rat anyway). As far as i knew, unlike your claim, Stu Rat was never banned from Reference Desk. He was driven off by harsh personal attacks from other editors, to which he responded to patiently and civilly.Rich (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, all sanctions can be appealed at WP:AN; that's not for me to decide. But for the community to reconsider such an appeal, there'd almost certainly be a couple of preconditions: First, he'd have to ask for it himself, which as far as I know he hasn't. The community at WP:AN almost never entertains appeals brought on behalf of a sanctioned user by a third party. Second, now that he's not only topic-banned but blocked for long-term sockpuppetry, he'd probably stand no chance without at least fulfilling the conditions of the WP:Standard offer, most crucially: a longish period without socking. So any appeal in the next, say, 6 months would very likely be doomed to fail. Third, his sanction would very likely not be lifted without either some other form of restriction or at least a very clear and credible voluntary commitment to refrain from the patterns of behaviour he was sanctioned for. If not a continuation of the topic ban, that would at least entail a restriction against unsourced answers or the like. If by "start over" you mean he should be allowed to simply continue where he left off, then I'd say chances for that are very slim indeed. Fut.Perf.☼08:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but “sockpuppet” has gotten a pejorative stigma that seems unwarranted here.StuRat isnt one of the semimalevolent users who gang up on other editors with their sockpuppet goons.Rich (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
You've got 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
On the note for the so-called Kosovo it clearly states:
“
Kosovo note may be used in articles where "Kosovo", "Republic of Kosovo", "Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija", etc. appear in a geographical or political context.
It may be, where appropriate. It doesn't have to be. There was never a license for arbitrarily pushing this into everybody's face on every single article where Kosovo is mentioned. Go to the article talkpage to discuss, as you ought to have done the day you started edit-warring about it. Fut.Perf.☼19:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello FPAS,
Please be more careful when you use rollback such as this. Rollback may not be used with these types of edits unless the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. I hold rollback rights and I understand the policies behind using rollback. Please see the first bullet point at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. In the future, when you revert my edits, please explain your edits. Interstellarity (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Enough explanation on the first of my edits: [54]. Next time you are about to make mechanistic and nonsensical mass edits that have been tried and reverted multiple times before, please think and talk before you make them. Fut.Perf.☼19:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello FP@S. I may not be online for this week and thus might not respond the comments at an ANI thread. Hence, i have decided to raise the long-term problem here (please have a look at their contribs). The user mentioned has a long history of WP:TENDENTIOUS and incompetent edits, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:EW. I am about to break 3RR as they are edit-warring to insert a SYNTH content[55]. An admin's eye is needed. Puduḫepa19:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATHSLOPU06:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. The user mentioned has a long history of issues regarding NPOV and incompetent edits and edit-warring. User ignored my explanations/overtures for discussion in talk section and deleted one. An admin's eye is needed.Preservedmoose (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The user mentioned has a long history of issues regarding NPOV and incompetent edits and edit-warring. You simply copy-pasted the report above[56] and then paraphrased it. I can add copious diffs re WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:COMPETENCE, WP:EW, WP:SYNTH policies you frequently violate despite the warnings by multiple editors. Plus, you did not "explain" anything, you just wrote that you were preparing to "report" me[57]. FP@S, please take a closer look at their whole editing history (not just the current PoV-wars). Is he a really WP:HERE to contribute or here to push a nationalist agenda? (see his edits on Georgia-related pages and other articles on ancient peoples of Transcaucasia and Anatolia) See, for example, this TP discussion by Austronesier[58]. There are plenty of such WP:SYNTH, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:EW cases. Puduḫepa20:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this[61] on their recent contribs. A content based on a secondary RS deleted, and a content from a primary source (as most of the time - see his other controversial edits and the sources he used) added. As i said above, many WP:TENDENTIOUS cases like this can be detected with a closer look at their edits. This seems to be a pattern of editing and is not (and will not be) limited to a few pages. Puduḫepa21:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
1) I wrote those sections. I did the research. Sources are valid, cited, objective, and have been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. 2) In that case, that was not falsified information (nor have I ever engaged in falsified information). I cited legitimate academic journals, which, again have been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia. A nationalistic user accused me of being a shill because the (sourced) information that I provided didn't fit said user's nationalistic agenda. Said user also restarted to racist attacks. If you're going to waste your life digging through my user history, you could at least check the validity/content of my sources and present the dispute between said biased user and myself in an objective way. 3) That information is again valid and cited. 4) Don't assume my gender or anything about me.
As for the Gutians, the statement that they contributed to the Kurdish ethnogenesis, while possibly factually correct, is improvable. Furthermore, every single ethnic group since 2500 BCE in the greater Near East could be genetically descended from the Gutians. Why single out one particular group that post-dates the Gutians by more than 1000 years at the most conservative? Why not also mentioned Arabs, Jews, Assyrians, or other Iranian groups? user:Puduḫepa's edits display an trend of intentional semantic usage to misrepresent information or further a particular agenda (just as user:Puduḫepa is doing with his/her misrepresentation of a long resolved editing dispute from more than 2 years ago). user:Puduḫepa is also guilty of selective sourcing (i.e. deleting factually accurate, cited content for no discernible reason) which is a NPOV issue. user:Puduḫepa is not Wikipedia's gatekeeper. Preservedmoose (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The content was not added by me, your accusations are baseless personal attacks. I only removed your SYNTH from a section (like other editors did on the pages you filled with SYNTHs and ORs) and changed the word from "many" to "several". Anyway, i will leave it to FP@S, and if he needs more diffs, i would provide. WP:SYNTH is WP:SYNTH and WP:TENDENTIOUS editor is WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. Everything is clear and obvious here. Puduḫepa22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, the above sources are the same sources that were in question in the dispute that Puduḫepa mentioned. Apparently including these sources on the Diauehi page was indicative that I am a Russian shill (a country that I have never been to nor a language that I speak or read).Preservedmoose (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are that confident with your edits (based on primary sources), then please go ahead and remove the tags added by Kober. Apparently, you are watching this page and saw these tags long before. I repeat, since the report was hijacked: the editor has a history of WP:SYNTH and WP:TENDENTIOUS edits (and WP:EW to keep them) - some cases were reported above and more diffs can be added.Puduḫepa22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I never suggested you made those comments. However, you did bring up an old dispute between another user (who you specified above). I responded to that comment of yours by clarifying the details of the dispute because you misrepresented or misunderstood the detail of the dispute. I did see the tags but didn’t remove them because I was trying to avoid some stupid conflict like the one we are in now.
Please point out where I engaged in personal attacks. Again, you’re intentionally misrepresenting a situation.
I have never engaged in “original research” on Wikipedia. Any edits I made were backed up by legitimate citations. I fail to see how adequately citing an edit (often with multiple, legitimate sources) constitutes OR any more than any other sourced content on Wikipedia.
I actually made edits after you had criticized my edits to be more in line with your requests, so I’m not even sure what you’re upset about.
You accuse me of WP: TENDENTIOUS edits...I fail to see how pointing out additional research/critical academic research of a theory is "tendentious." In fact, it's the opposite. How is highlighting that the Gutians were not Indo-Iranics in a section that claiming that Kurds (Iranics) descend from the Gutians "tendentious"? It seems to me that deleting this is what's actually tendentious.
I've only engaged in two edit wars that I recall. The one that we already discussed (which neither of us ever reported), and the one with you today.
WP:TENDENTIOUS is general problem of your edits, not [just] about one specific WP page (e.g. filling the pages of ancient peoples of Caucasus and parts of Western Asia with undue stuffs which are mostly from a few obscure Armenian scholars with dubious reliability, unexplained removals of secondary RSs, etc.)
I fail to see how adequately citing an edit (often with multiple, legitimate sources) constitutes OR any more than any other sourced content on Wikipedia. If you still fail to see what WP:SYNTH is, despite i (and other editors) linked it many times, this is WP:CIR problem (if not WP:IDHT). I don't buy what you wrote about the tags (considering your stubborn edit-wars on other pages), but i will now stop talking about it for the sake of keeping the report as simple as possible. Please stop replying me - the admin is able to see what's happening by checking the diffs above and by taking a look at your other edits. Puduḫepa05:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll respond to you as much as I want to. We could have talked on your user page but you inexplicably deleted that, so we have to do it here. The sources I have cited are not really obscure. Frankly, all that statements like that do is show your bias (yet again). What's your criteria for deciding who is obscure and who isn't? If you haven't heard of them, are they obscure? Or maybe if they don't support your views. Any sources that I have cited have come from academic journals. Additionally, I kept conflicting information to my sources in articles. The intent was to EXPAND UPON articles (you know, like how an actual encyclopedia works) vs. whatever you're accusing me of. Go through my edits and find illegitimate sources. Let's see what you're talking about (and it's funny, because you're clearly fine with the obscure/outdated Kurdish and other sources). As for WP: SYNTH: No, not MANY editors. Two. You and the above user you...and like a year apart. Issues with the above user were quite a while ago, prior to you digging it out. TWO does not=MANY. Again, you're intentionally choosing words to support whatever narrative that fits your fancy. I've been an editor for more than a decade. Stop casting my edits as some long-term issue.Preservedmoose (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been an editor for more than a decade. Stop casting my edits as some long-term issue To have a long-term editing issues, one should be a long-term editor. A "newbie" with "long-term editing issues" would be an oxymoron. You managed to avoid scrutiny a long time, since you edited mostly obscure WP pages that only a few editors check, such as Mushki, Diaulehi, etc. Puduḫepa02:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I am the one who changed the word from "many" to "several", your accusations are, again baseless. I don't have to check all the sources cited on WP - no one has such a long time in their hands. But I *do* check the sources added by certain editors who has a history of SYNTH and TENDENTIOUS. And no, not just "two" - i can ping Calthinus, for example, but i don't want to fill FP@S's page and hijack the report. Puduḫepa06:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The issue with your edit was not whether the word was "many" or "several" (I don't care about that) but you deleting my edits highlighting that Kurdish is an Iranic language and Gutian was not and could not have been because it existed before Iraniac languages as distinct languages existed. Again, you're misrepresenting the actual issue. You are not innocent in this.Preservedmoose (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't care whether they were Iranic or forefathers of a certain ethnic group. I removed some unreliable and outdated sources already. But SYNTH is SYNTH. It is true that they spoke a language isolate that had nothing to do with IE, but it is WP:SYNTH, unless the sources you cited doe not talk about the connection clearly. You were warned multiple times for violating SYNTH before. I don't see why are you keep dong this again and again. Puduḫepa02:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Guys, can you give it a rest for the moment please? If you want me to look into this, I'll need some time, and I'd rather not keep seeing the orange bar lighting up all day long. I'll ask you if I need more input to understand something. Fut.Perf.☼06:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry. I tried to keep this report as simple as possible and requested them to stop arguing with me already. From now on, i will stop replying them. Just a note, there are also WP:CHERRY and WP:WEASEL problems that i spotted on some pages log before (see this, this and this pages for example), i don't know if he vioalates these policies systematically as he violates SYNTH and TENDENTIOUS, though. Another page which is on my watchlist and a discussion on its talk page which i saw previously[62] See the comments by the anon and Florian Blaschke - the section in question was mostly written by the editor reported above. Puduḫepa07:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Puduḫepa: What exactly was cherrypicked in those sections? Nothing was edited out. Things were added in, cited, and expanded upon. Yet another example of you intentionally misrepresenting the situation. I personally do not believe in the so-called Armenian theory (I believe in the Kurgan/Yamnaya theory), so I'm not even sure why you are pushing that in regards to me or what any of that has to do with me and my edits. Nor do I believe that I wrote that Kim had said there were "unique morphological developments," although I did add that source (from a reputable scholar). I did not add the section about Ivanov's and Gamreklidze in that article. So stop intentionally misrepresenting or half representing details! For example, the Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture article was NOT mostly written by me...I simply added three academic sources which say that it was an Indo-European culture and one that it was potentially associated with the Mushki. Nowhere in the article did I relate any of this to Armenians. In fact, Puduḫepa, I suggest you actually go back and re-read some of those talk pages on those article again. You might be surprised by what you find in there (case in point, the Misleading Information section in this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proto-Armenian_language article...which you highlighted above). Furthermore, you saying that you "don't have the time" to check the quality of sources, after accusing me of citing "fringe" and nationalistic scholars, is laughable and further betrays your motives.Preservedmoose (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
What exactly was cherrypicked in those sections? Nothing was edited out. Things were added in, cited, and expanded upon. This is source falsification issue via cherry-picking and was added by you[63][64][65]. The content you added was a misrepresentation of the cited source and it was further discussed here[66]. the Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture article was NOT mostly written by me I have never said that the page was mostly written by you. You either does not understand what you have read or you are trying to muddy the waters. I was referring the section on this page and yes, the section in question[67] that was described as "low quality" due to PROFRINGE, FALSEBALANCE and INTEGRITY issues was *mostly* written by you and this can be confirmed easily by checking its revision history. And yes, there are copious WP pages having NPOV, SYTNH, INTEGRITY issues on WP and i don't have to check them all to justify my removal of a SYNTH content added by an editor with notorious edits. I have already replied this. FP@S warned you (and me) not to continue to fill his page. Respect his request and stop trying to muddy the waters as this does not help your cause - when evaluating this case, the admin will probably check the edits and pages and not your "replies" on his talk page. Puduḫepa02:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: i don't think this would help. See their "discussion"[68] with an another editor trying to explain him what WP:SYNTH means and why it should not be violated and then, read Preservedmoose's answers. Puduḫepa02:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
That was an interesting image you found. Again though, the "date parameter" on the page seems slightly off (assuming IMAGE DATE 90 means what I think it means). What's up with that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
On that akgimage site? No idea where they got that from. It's of course quite impossible to be from that early; there was no Christian iconography at that time yet, and there were no churches it could have been painted in. Fut.Perf.☼07:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Othonoi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paxos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
"Whereas" is used to contrast to different ideas and cannot start a clause, whereas "while" can be used to start a clause and can complement ideas. "Whereas" is incorrect in this context but "while" is. Also, a semi colon links related sentences. Those two ideas are are significantly related so a semi colon is better here.
Before you start pontificating to people about grammar, you'd better learn some grammar and proper English yourself. No, it is of course perfectly fine to use contrastive "whereas" in the first of two contrasted clauses [69]. Fut.Perf.☼20:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Post-AfD
Demonization of Serbs has been deleted, but it's still on that editor's sandbox. Is that allowedor should it be too be deleted? I'm also wondering if it's ok to move Destruction of libraries in post-independence Croatia to AfD. Are you planning on doing any cleanup? Nobody is active there anymore and I don't think that it makes sense to keep afloat an article with so many tags and general issues if nobody is going to work on it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Asking for rollback permission
I have fully understood policy of Wikipedia.like this is an encyclopedia and neutrality should be maintained while writing on it as well as unsourced edit and copyright violation is not permitted here.
I have however seen that there are a number of pages on Wikipedia specially related to South Asian politics and important personality as well as historical figures which are vandalised by new users and remain vandalised as administrator attention is not drawn on some minor edits as well as less important pages.But as a history teacher I think that such minor edit can cost a lot to people who are dependent upon Wikipedia to enhance their knowledge base as after all they end up learning falsified stuffs. In such a scenario I request rollback right to help uphold the quality of Wikipedia article. Editor wikip6 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Macedonia naming dispute#Cleanup. How about you draft up an improved lead for the article and put it in a subpage? You say how bad it is now. Having something to discuss might stimulate people's thinking, even if your particular draft doesn't get adopted. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm really struggling hard to make sense of what you're doing at the Macedonist redirect page. I provided a very detailed edit summary, and you reverted with the word 'no'...? What is going on here? Are you engaging in pointy editing? Do I have to rfc this? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean, what on Earth does "no" even mean...are you denying the truth of my statements, if so which ones? That edit summary is very rude and I'm genuinely confused. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, you were obviously wrong about your assertion that the link was being used in "the sense you used" in the Bitola inscription article. The guy referred to there is a scholar specialized in Macedonian linguistics, so the article was quite correctly calling him that, a "macedonist". That's a trivially viable academic description, just as somebody specializing in the English language is an anglicist, somebody specializing in German is a germanist and so on. The other, political notion only exists in two narrowly circumscribed contexts: in an historic context of the late-19th to early-20th centuries, and in the political polemics of present-day Bulgarian nationalism, which uses it as its favourite whipping-horse. Note that "Macedonist" and "Macedonism" in this political sense doesn't in fact refer simply to "Macedonian nationalism"; it refers to the mere notion that Macedonian exists as a separate nation and language. In discussions of early 20th century ideological conflicts this term has a certain validity; in present day contexts, the idea that this notion as such is a sign of any political "-ism" rather than just an obvious and trivial fact is itself a marker of the nationalist fringe polemics the term is still used in. Fut.Perf.☼11:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"Well, you were obviously wrong about your assertion that the link was being used in "the sense you used" in the Bitola inscription article." You clearly didn't read my edit summary properly. I said "One of the hyperlinks on the Bitola monument [I meant to say Bitola inscription*], clearly uses the term in the exact same manner as I am." You can see that here: "However, after 1963, the official authorities openly began criticizing the former pro-macedonist policies conducted in Bulgaria and clearly changed its position on the Macedonian Question." I would encourage you to re-read my edit summaries and self-revert yourself rather than trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
What makes you think I was even aware of that other link instance in that article? I only saw the one you fiddled around with. Then, of course, that othe r link needs to be fixed. As does the whole article, which has always had a tendency of developing into a huge ugly stupid coatrack of nationalist polemics. Fut.Perf.☼12:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"What makes you think I was even aware of that other link instance in that article? I only saw the one you fiddled around with." Well, you said in your edit summary "rv, no, this is the sense used by most incoming links"...So I naturally assumed you checked the incoming links. It seems you have just admitted to telling a lie now. Face it, there's an abundance of reliable sources which support me, and none that support you. You're righting great wrongs here. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Swarm:Hi Swarm. I'm glad to hear from someone else here. Whilst that's a good suggested compromise, I really struggle to see why a compromise should be necessary. On Wikipedia, I can't find a single reliable source to say that "Macedonist" is the English word for someone who does "Macedonian studies". I can find an enormous number of reliable sources which say that "Macedonist" means someone who believes in Macedonism. If Wikipedia has an ounce of credibility, my edit should not be reverted. This is not withstanding that all the links going into Macedonist are referring to Macedonism and not Macedonian studies. This is also not withstanding the fact that the word "Macedonist" is used 18 times on Macedonism and 0 times on Macedonian studies. In what world is this (LINK) a remotely acceptable edit summary? I don't see why a compromise should be had when the only reasoning I've been given is WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:NATIONALIST, WP:POINT. I'm spending hours of my time trying to solve a problem, which should take 1 minute to solve. Am I going mad or something? How are any of the reasons being given valid reasons to revert me...We may as well just throw all policies out the window and say that editors can just revert whoever they want whenever they want for fun. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Apples&Manzanas you may be correct on this matter, but linking the entire credibility of Wikipedia to a single edit of a redirect is not going to help your argument. Neither does WP:ROWN, which is an essay and does not work at all within the context of redirects, nor jumping straight to various other essays. After some quick and uncomprehensive googling I'm inclined to agree that the term is usually used in the nationalistic sense, but that does not make Fut.Perf wrong when they say it's a trivially viable academic description. CMD (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Sure we can say that essays and whatever else is irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant are the large number of reliable sources which substantiate that 'Macedonist = Macedonism' as seen on the article to which Macedonism redirects. And can even find more in a 10 second quick google, e.g 1 and 2. Not one single reliable source has been presented to say that Macedonist = Macedonian studies in English. I've spent hours having to make the case for redirecting Macedonist to Macedonism. I haven't seen a scrap of evidence presented for contrary position: why Macedonist should redirect to Macedonian studies. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
As I explicitly said, I am inclined to agree on current evidence. There is no need to repeat what you have already said. Such a response does not indicate to me that you understand what I said, so please let me know if I can clarify. I would recommend that if you have spent hours on a redirect, and find this is causing a great deal of stress or irritation, that you work on something else in the meantime. CMD (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought I responded to you, so you may need to clarify. Was the part I missed about it Fut Perf's comment about it being a "trivially viable academic description"? There was no actual evidence for that claim...I can't really refute an idea when it's just an unfalsifiable personal opinion. Its use as an "academic description" is documented by reliable sources and is relevant to the subject of Macedonism...This may not be the most popular subject in the world, but that doesn't make the term trivial for those studying it. And moreover, I still don't see why that's an argument against it redirecting to its most logical article, which uses the term on 18 instances. Now if someone were to argue that Macedonist redirect article should be deleted, then okay, I don't care. But even if it is a "trivial term" (which I don't accept) that still isn't an argument for wanting it to redirect to Macedonian studies. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The main thrust of my comment was that mixing up the accusations with your arguments weakens your arguments. It did not mean I had not read your arguments. As for the "trivial" item, you appear to have misunderstood what Fut.Perf was saying. They were noting that the use of Macedonist meaning an term for a linguist is a simple and understandable adaptation of similar terms, which they provided. They were not saying that the use of Macedonist to mean Macedonism was trivial. CMD (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"They were noting that the use of Macedonist meaning an term for a linguist is a simple and understandable adaptation of similar terms", I understood that was said, but that does not make it true. That is a claim which requires citations. As for your comments about me mixing up "accusations" well, I don't accept they were "accusations". I was describing the kinds of reasoning that had been given to me and seeking to show it was invalid. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm I am not sure what is going on in [70], but for some reason they "pinged" me there and I also noticed they are mentioning your name too. Maybe it is just that my english language skill sucks but I have trouble understanding what the heck they are talking about. I thought better bring the matter to your attention since they mentioned you as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)11:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious why you deleted the native names for the Hagia Sophia page. Why would a user wanting to know about a Roman building not want to know the Romans' name for it? Or why would a user wanting to know more about its time as a Catholic church suffer from having the that Church's name for the church included on it page? Similarly, why should a 6th century building be given a modern and medieval Greek name but the name at the time of its construction in the language of its constructors be omitted? I have added them back in to assist the user and to correct some errors in grammar left behind by their removal. I'm very keen to learn the reasoning here. GPinkerton (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Bad habits on Wikipedia die hard. One of the most persistent bad habits on Wikipedia is lead sentence glossing bloat, and one of the most obnoxious reasons for creating lead sentence bloat is the perceived (and entirely ill-conceived) need to symbolically acknowledge this or that culture's relevance to a given topic by means of adding "its" names to things. Lead sentences need to be kept brief and crisp. Readers don't want to read through multi-line parentheses of glosses over glosses before they get to the first actual piece of information, the definition sentence that comes after the parenthesis. There is rarely if ever a need for adding more than two or three name variants in the lead, and this should be strictly reserved to those names that are relevant to English-speaking readers. "Sancta Sapientia" isn't among these, because, quite simply, nobody in English has ever used it (and "Sancta Sophia" doesn't fare much better these days). This building has a single name, of which maximally three variants are relevant to the reader at that point in the lead: the conventional English name "Hagia Sophia"; its Greek spelling and translation (because it serves to explain the origin and meaning of the name); and the Turkish "Ayasofya" (because by convention we include the current name in the single local official language, for ease of recognition). Everything else is for further down in the article.
Needless to say, what we need least of all is the ridiculous competition of cramming claims about "Mosque of..." and counter-claims about "Church of..." into the lead line. Unfortunately, your revert has given rise to yet another bout of that most pathetic of territory-marking races from another bunch of editors who think about articles the way dogs think about lamp posts.
As an aside, I'd also question your assumption that Latin was "the language of its constructors". In the 6th century, Constantinople was an overwhelmingly Greek-speaking city in an overwhelmingly Greek-speaking culture; Latin was never more than the working language of a tiny administrative elite, with hardly anybody speaking it natively. But this is strictly as an aside here; I can't stress strongly enough that it is not the argument any of this depends on.
Incidentally, I also don't see any sourcing for the Latin names in the article. So, which of them, "Sancta Sophia" or "Sancta Sapientia", did the imperial administration actually use, at the time? How many original documents written natively in Constantinople in Latin during that time do we actually have? Fut.Perf.☼07:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise:Here's an article, published only yesterday, in which the building is called "Santa Sophia", which I can only assume is half-Latin and half-official as far as the Vatican is concerned. The most obvious "original documents written natively in Constantinople in Latin" are of course the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae (which calls the church the Magna Ecclesia), the Codex Theodosianus, the Codex Iustinianus, and others include all of the coins minted in Constantinople and throughout the empire during the entire reign of Justinian, all of his predecessors, and all of his successors for a number of generations. Another salient example of this name use is the Justinianic ekphrasis of Paul the Silentiary, whose conventional title is Decriptio sanctae Sophiae. (See the title of the 2011 edition.) Another much later example is the famous "Narratio de aedificatione templi Sanctae Sophiae", which gives the well-known tale about the angel cunningly deceived into permanently remaining in the church and preserving its stability and is the sole source for the claim, repeated in this here article, that Justinian uttered the words "Solomon I have outdone thee" on the church's completion. A modern English-language source might be the 2011 entry on Constantinople in Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.) or the 2009 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 rev. ed.) or perhaps the 2003 Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. It's also what this 2017 book calls the place in its discussion of Byron's Don Juan. (Byron himself just called it "Sophia".) Notable works of scholarship on the site also use Sancta Sophia or translations thereof as the English name: see: "Notes on the Archeology of St. Sophia at Constantinople", or Saint Sophia at Constantinople: Singulariter in Mundo. I have no opinion on Sancta Sapientia, which I suspect is more for the theological concept. If Latin was "hardly spoken by anybody" then why did Corippus bother to compose his panegyrics in that language if no-one was going to understand them? Why was the Roman army's working language Latin if its soldiers could not understand their commands? How were citizens expected to follow laws written and legal proceedings held exclusively in Latin? Why was the statue that caused the supporters of John Chrysostom to burn down Hagia Sophia inscribed in Latin (it can still be seen in the precincts of the museum) if there was no-one there to read it? GPinkerton (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, as I said earlier, nothing in this part of the discussion is actually pertinent to the argument about what a lead sentence should look like, so I don't know why you went to all the trouble of composing such a long paragraph here, but just to start with a few of your points: the "Santa Sophia" example is of course not the "article" calling it that, but the Pope, and evidently neither in English nor in Latin but in Italian. The "Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae" may be an original Latin text from Constantinople, but as you yourself said, it isn't using any of the names you claimed were the Latin names. Both "Descriptio sanctae Sophiae" and "Narratio de aedificatione templi Sanctae Sophiae" are conventional westernized titles of original Greek works; the fact that Byzantine works are sometimes quoted in the West by their titles translated to Latin has fuckall nothing to do with any original significance of Latin in their context of origin. But as I said, nothing in all of this is relevant to anything. Fut.Perf.☼19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you missed my point, which is that Sancta Sophia is, and has been, repeatedly used to to describe the building and its institutions in English-language sources, as well as in other sources and of course throughout the building's use as a church and at the time of its construction. Apart from that, it should be obvious that any major Roman building's Wikipedia article should supply its Latin name. GPinkerton (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Just for context we've been having a large discussion on the Hagia Sophia talk about whether this user should have changed the language to Ancient Greek from Koine Greek and also deleted the name used for the building by the still present Greek minority in Turkey, replacing it instead with a Latin name that is only half of a translation (Hagia -> Sancta but Sophia left untranslated), the complications of which are perhaps better discussed in the third paragraph of the article. The last prong of this debate was the user's desire to refer to Justinian only as a roman emperor, and not an eastern roman or byzantine emperor. The final temporary compromise was to leave the hyperlink to roman emperor with the 'eastern' adjective outside the link. My concern is that now when the building is referred to as byzantine architecture later in the first paragraph there is no clear context for why a roman building is byzantine architecture. This is a major article that non-specialists will read, so I think it is confusing. I really think calling Justinian an Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor would introduce these terms at the outset and clarify this. This would help the second paragraph make sense when it says that the Byzantine Empire 'returned' to the city after the 4th Crusade. With the new usage of calling Justinian only a roman emperor, the 'return' of the Byzantine Empire after the crusades comes out of nowhere. Where did it return from? We hadn't heard of the Byzantine Empire yet in this article. Finally, there is an extensive Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire page on wikipedia that focuses on this exact era with its main infobox featuring a map of the empire in 555 AD and with discussion of the Hagia Sophia. There is now no link to that page from the intro, since we are linking Justinian instead to roman emperor. This seems a lost opportunity to direct users to the extensive relevant page, instead directing them to a short page that doesn't focus on the empire that had its capital in Constantinople and doesn't have further discussion of the Hagia Sophia and its influence. Piledhighandeep (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Piledhighandeep: This is not the case. I did not add the Latin and Ancient Greek in, they were already there. Others have attempted to remove them without discussion. The link you added was to the List of Byzantine Emperors which does not help. The Byzantine Empire article does not focus on this period, but covers a swathe of history more than a millennium long. I would be quite happy to eliminate the phrase "return of the Byzantine empire" since the empire that returned to Constantinople was the Empire of Nicaea in any case and the Byzantine Empire, being a retrospective title awarded to numerous successive polities connected only their tenure of the city of Constantinople, did not strictly exist during the Latin Empire. (Also a "Byzantine" empire.) GPinkerton (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
If I have counted correctly, one contributor opined this was not the right question, writing Neither. One came out clearly for A Type of Essay. 12 others !voted Guideline, and two more contributors even wrote that it should be Policy. It would thus appear there is no community support for deprecation of the guideline status, and that the chance that this may change by a protracted discussion is negligible. --Lambiam13:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
AfD transparency
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia, an editor half-quoted a comment you made a while ago and presented your comment as part of an "ANI conclusion" which supports a !keep argument for the article. I'm against the practice of fully quoting - let alone half quoting - editors who have chosen to not take part and hold a view in a discussion in order to strengthen any argument. Thus, I considered it wrong to do the same as that editor and quote your comment myself. For the sake of transparency, I'm notifying you about the incident. Have a good day.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
While I completely agree to protecting the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, I also couldn't help noticing that you were an involved editor in this edit war. I understand that sometimes it is better to take a quick action, but it also would have been more produent to get another admin to do the job. I am sure you guys have your own discussion channels. Please, don't take this otherwise, I am just concerned about the Wikipedia ways (I was blocked last week for 48 hours, and you have been desysoped a few times). A GAR nomination immediately after the protection looks even more deadly for an involved admin.
A GAR is was probably a bit of over-reaction. The current article looks way better than what passed through GAN. And, yes some editors believed it to be so good that it was nominated (unsuccessfully) as FACs. I checked both versions, and the current one is better. I also checked a few citations and they checked out fine (I didn't have time to check them all, and you didn't mention any particular misrepresentation of any source). Apparently despite all the edit warring the community (with help from diligent admins and helpful editors like you and others) managed to keep the article in a good shape. But, since I am not a GA reviewer here, I amy not be a good judge of things after all.
Your nomination probably is not complete. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment does not list it. And clicking on the GAR banner you posted takes to emoty pages. Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/GA2 that you created links only to the four projects you posted to. It also seemed a bit odd that you also part reviewed the article already in that review discussion, especially considering that the language used doesn't read like objective statements. If nothing elese, you may want to check if the nomination is in right order.
Again, don't misunderstand me please, I am just telling what I understand (I may be wrong), and not lecturing an expreinced admin. I don't think I have that kind of entitlement, and I hope I have not been disrespectful to you.
One last thing, though I don't have the capacity to review it, I definitely can help addressing any particular issue raised (unless the article is delisted without giving anyone any chance to address them). I hope to be of some use after all. Thanks. Y Someday I wish to share a virtual cup of tea with you and sit down for a chat, when you have the time and the mood. Aditya(talk • contribs)17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I've never been involved in that article. I happened to see a state of the article that had a blatantly disruptive, falsifying edit in it, and I took the emergency measure to do a wholesale revert to the last version prior to the offending edit, because I couldn't assess so quickly what else had been distorted in the meantime. As for the GAR, I've done my best following the procedure described at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment (but you are right the link from the main talk page wasn't working, probably because I saved the subpage before I saved the edit to the talkpage; I've corrected that now.) Fut.Perf.☼17:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The link is working. But the GAR page is still not listing the discussion for some reason. Shall I ask someone to check what's wrong? I am pretty shameless at bugging people. BTW, I have taken a quick look at the edit history and was suprised to see so many super-experienced editors behaving like children. What an article! Aditya(talk • contribs)17:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as I understood the instructions, "individual reassessments" (as opposed to "community reassessments") are not supposed to be listed on that page. Fut.Perf.☼19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Is it so? That's okay then. But, I tried using the talk page posting tamplate described there:
Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
And, that one isn't working either.
Also noticed that the GAR page expicitly says, "Use the individual reassessment process if you don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war." Hmmm, may be you got the wrong kind of GAR here, and should have probably opted for the other kind of GAR. Aditya(talk • contribs)00:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Since you know the situation better than anyone else, I request a longer protection of my talk page. If this person can hound you for 10 years, she/he can continue to post utter stupidity to my talk page too for months. Can you protect me from this fool till the end of this year? Thanks. I should have listened to you earlier. Aditya(talk • contribs)00:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
PS > I'm assuming that Greece/Turkey are covered under DS for Eastern Europe and the Balkans, but I wanted to confirm. Thanks // Timothy :: talk08:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
On removing questions, but leaving the answers
We get the occasional unanswered question, but more confusing are answers to unasked (or invisible because removed) questions ... When you removed the question of a banned user, did you leave the answers by good-faith editors because you've been berated about removing other people's comments? I just think it would be less confusing (and less attention-drawing and in general less absurd) to remove the entire thread (when the OP is said banned user, I'm not talking about other people's question where said banned user later posts a comment). What are your thoughts? ---Sluzzelintalk21:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Just noting here that there is nothing inappropriate about calling VXfC a nasty retard. They are a nasty retard, and I'm sure I've called them worse things. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf.☼06:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry but why are you deleting everything I write ? Okay , I talked too much about Neolitic Greece but how about the Hellenic Navy intro ? It was a good intro . I will stop talking too much about Neolithic Greece but please don't delete it , I wasted 3 days to find information.
Thank you for the comments; you are right to think that I was going by the title; and thus the comment about the *topic* being notable. If the sourcing was bad, I withdraw my objection; it was just a quick aside on an article that turned up on the uncategorized list. I have seen some AfDs that seem to reflect an underlying ethnocentrism, and thought this might be an instance of that, but did not evaluate the article in any detail. Not that my approval of the deletion is needed at this point ;) Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Fut Perf, great work awhile back on the Anc. Greek dialect maps though I probably don't need to say this. I wanted to ask -- while the one for Greece and W. Anatolia is dated to 500-400 BCE, what was the dating on your Italy map? Sorry if I just missed it and it is somewhere in the description after all. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late reply. The source for both maps (it's a single map in Woodard) is actually no more specific than "first millenium BC". In the context of Woodard's chapter, that simply refers to the dialects known from alphabetic inscriptions, as opposed to those dialects of the "second millennium BC" known from Linear B. So, essentially it refers to the time period from the onset of dialectal alphabetic inscriptions until the adoption of written Koine, which would have obliterated much of the evidence of local dialects in the written record. I'm not sure where you found the "500-400" figure or who put it in; it's not stated like that in the source. Fut.Perf.☼22:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hi, thanks for reaching out. At a quick glance, I'd AGF on this one. Their contributions strike me as largely well-intentioned and reasonable. Sure, the duplicated and graphically emphasized tagging at Old East Slavic was unnecessary, but the tag itself was spot on, wasn't it? The point they were making at Talk:Names of Germany was also quite reasonable and well presented. Should we just ask them to stick with the standard signatures etc? Or am I missing something here? Fut.Perf.☼22:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't ignoring a several minute-old hat, I didn't see it okay?
Hello. I would appreciate your attention. This article here: 2020 East Mediterranean crisis was recently created, but I am not sure if it has any real usefulness. It attempts to shows the tensions between Greece and Turkey as being an ongoing event, and it had some WP:NPOV issues as it only presented the claims/views of the one side but not the other. Also this "event" has a starting date (10 August 2020) but this appears more like WP:OR than anything else. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)07:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say 'thanks' (or Danke Schön!) for your work in maintaining the Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany page. I find it a really useful resource that I keep coming back to, and one that requires constant upkeep. Well done!
Sorry - I intended to sign that but I have edited Wikipedia in maybe ten years and everything has changed! Now where is that signing button.... Neil (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fut. Perf. Question for you on a beloved topic.. Years ago did we not have some sort of consensus that Greek Macedonia places in the east would have the "Bulgarian" name in the lead, while those in the west would have "Macedonian Slavic" in the lead? I could be wrong but I could've sworn this was a thing. Either way, not a huge deal. Best. --Local herotalk15:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I certainly remember arguing for that arrangement at some point. Not sure if it ever acquired the status of a "consensus". Can't find where exactly that discussion was right now. I'll let you know if I remember later. Fut.Perf.☼07:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there sir. It already includes things like Democracy, Philosophy and much more, why can't I just add some other several things? I can't understand this revert in any way. Anyways, have a nice day you and your family, and my best wishes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Holloman123 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
,.jpg)
Resolved
.jpeg)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Turkey_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://s38.photobucket.com/user/SilentResident/media/Wikipedia/Screenshot_000_zps53w3btjz.png.html?sort=3&o=0){kind=link}
Template:No fair has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. [Username Needed] 11:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevepeterson (talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Someday I wish to share a virtual cup of tea with you and sit down for a chat, when you have the time and the mood. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
![[71]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABrooklyn_Museum_-_Herod_%28H%C3%A9rode%29_-_James_Tissot_-_overall.jpg&type=revision&diff=442124219&oldid=355167750){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)