User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

File:Les Pattinson Cebu City.jpg

hello. i need your help. i don't understand how this stuff works, or where on this page i'm supposed to write stuff. (i'm probably in the wrong spot right now) my photo "Les Pattinson Cebu City.jpg" is going to be deleted tomorrow, but i got permission and left another message on my talk page on the 8th. the photographer has written on the photo on his facebook: "This picture is published under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license." as you suggested for me to have him do, but i don't know what i'm supposed to do next!! this is really all gobbledigook to me. i tried looking through the site on all the help pages, etc, but i can't figure it out. i had no problem editing the actual page, but this photo stuff is beyond me. can anyone help me get the photo onto the page?? please. thanks Red (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if you feel confused by the image stuff. From what I can see, you actually did the right thing by adding the link to that licensing statement to the image page, so you shouldn't be too worried (even if you hadn't got hold of me right now, the admin reviewing the image tomorrow would probably see that you added the link.) The only little problem I have right now is that the link to Facebook isn't working for me (is it a page only accessible to "friends" or something?), so I can't actually check it right now, but I'm inclined to take your word for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

i was worried about that, but it is there, i promise you. maybe i can ask the person to make that particular photo visible to 'everyone' somehow. that might help. i just don't know how to edit the photo tags to make it visible on the page now. thanks, and sorry i put this in the wrong place before. still learning. Red (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nirmal

Nirmal,

12 FEB, 2012

Subject: SORRY LETTER FOR RUDE BEHAVIOR

Dear Sir,

I am extremely sorry for my rude behavior on the Wikipedia talk page. I have rudely behaved with you and acted impolite and in a immature way.When you were deleting all my precious work i was angry,but now i realize it was for the good. That’s the reason I kept that in my mind and behaved so badly with you.The way I behaved with you was totally wrong. Please forgive me and please guide me while i rewrite the whole Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation an Indian revenue service page,please guide me.Please do not keep reverting i will have to see the old material to edit and put the good material in the Indian revenue service page.

Yours truly,

Mr.Nirmal Mathew (Nirmal95 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

Delete Copvio and block Vandalising editor

The time has come to block User:Nirmal95. He is constantly vandalizing the Wikipedia article of Indian Revenue Service. It is no way possible that the images that Nirmal has posted by him in Wikimedia commons is his (owned or personally shot by him by his personal camera or that the images he has does not come with a license). It is very likely that the images are from somewhere else - like a blog, Federal Government website or the IRS official websites. It seems to me that the images are stolen. Also, all the test created into the Indian Revenue Service article by User:Nirmal95 has neither inline citations or proofs for reference or validation. The article just goes on and on without any logical reference and editing patterns. It is seen that all the text (by Nirmal - posted by him) is copied and pasted from somewhere else. Hence, User:Nirmal95 should be blocked from editing as he is proven to conduct vandalism again and again with utmost persistence and dedication. Thank You.--Varghese Jacob (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, did he upload any more images? I don't see any under his account name on Commons; can you point me to some? Other than that, please avoid the accusation of "vandalism". I do agree he has made poor quality edits (though I hope he can improve), but it's not "vandalism" unless he were intentionally damaging content, which I don't think is the case. I'm a bit short of time right now; will look into it again later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Nirmal95 seems very fishy to me. I have been monitoring him from his many edits at the Indian Revenue Service article. The images such as in the Wikimedia Commons "DTAA cbdt.jpg" and "Exicse IRS page.jpg" posted in the article where previously posted in WIkimedia commons by User:Nirmal95 but somehow the photos were missing evidence of permission.and licensing problems - so these images were deleted by administrators there at Commons. However now it is seen that the same images with the same resolution have been posted again in the Commons by some other user by name "Mr. Zura Kakatchishili". I can't tell if these are accounts of one person at two different places with two different names. Really its very fishy!

One more thing, I know for one thing, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia can only be trusted as long it has corresponding reference and inline citations with it (proving the claims made in the text of the main and entire article). However, the entire article has neither incline citation and neither any reference to prove the text (facts, accuracy and validity) of Indian Revenue Service article. I would propose deletion of texts byUser:Nirmal95. I have no problems of him contributing to WIkipedia; but he should do so when he is responsible meaning that he has citations and reference to proove of what he writes and claims in the article text. Everybody should know that wikipedia "though its free for all" it is not anyone's personal website or a blog or a personal advertisement page.

Would you please retract this?

I'm asking you to retract this statement:[1] Anyone who's edited a wiki knows all it takes is to click "edit this page", copy the text, and then paste it to another wiki, which seems to be what has happened here. This whole business is very lulz-worthy, and there's no evidence that the info was copy-pasted by Mbz1. I can think of dozens of (mostly banned) users who'd do it just to troll. Risker (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't retract anything FPaS. If you do retract the comments, I will assume ownership of them. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to retract them either. The identity between the Meta RfC and the page on WikiBiz is absolutely certain – either the author of the former (Mbz1) copy-pasted it from the latter, or they were written by the same person. Since both pages were written incrementally over the course of several weeks, a blanket copy-and-paste in either direction is unlikely. This is beyond any reasonable debate. The identity of the ED author is not quite as obvious, but the identity of diffs chosen and other points of similarity do constitute fairly strong evidence in my view, and I'm not aware of any other troll with such an obvious vendetta against GG having been active during the same period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky

I have worked with BarkingMoon, and with PumpkinSky, see my talk and their's, and they feel like two different people. What I can imagine: that they sat together, one teaching the other, and both edited on the BarkingMoon account, but that is not the same. The similarities found just tell me that BarkingMoon copied his friends model. Someone trying a cleanstart would avoid those similarities, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find this convincing at all. The "would avoid those similarities" argument falls flat on its face, because we know for a fact that he didn't avoid those similarities on his second attempat as PumkinSky either. And wiki-tutoring of a friend would not explain the extreme similarities in behaviour. It must have been a singularly malleable "friend" indeed, if through a bit of wiki-tutoring he could be taught to adopt the exact same set of interests, the exact set of little mannerisms, the exact set of wikifriends (including you), the exact same manner of asking fake "newbie questions" to experienced editors (which, after all, he could simply have asked Rlevse about instead, right?), and the exact same manner of using the exact same crappy German for socializing with the exact same people. No, explaining the similarities between BM and PS as "copying his friend's model" is grasping at straws. As for the other possibility you hint at, that BM was somebody else but R. also sometimes edited through his account, well, that's the same thing: sockpuppetry. R. knew perfectly well, and knows perfectly well now, that that wasn't legitimate. That they "felt" like different people to you doesn't make it better. You wouldn't be the first person who fell for this kind of deceit from sockpuppets assuming the roles of wiki-friends. And it's indeed sad to see that he was deceiving even his wiki-friends in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

About topic ban of user Samofi

Hello, firstly I would like to say that Iam not asking the end of my topic ban [[2]]. Last months I tried to edit articles about economy, culture and geography and I had no edit warring or problems with other users. But I would like to have one exception in this phrase: "topic-banned indefinitely from all Hungarian-Slovak national and ethnicity issues, for continued tendentious battleground editing". Iam sure that I can better control myself, so I have an idea to make an experiment that I can react to talkpages in the articles about "Hungarian-Slovak national and ethnicity issues". At least in this one case: [[3]]. If my mentality will again battleground or if I will break the rules, I agree with definite ban about "Slovak-Hungarian national disputes". New phrase of my ban should be smthng like: "topic-banned indefinitely from all Hungarian-Slovak national and ethnicity issues, for continued tendentious battleground editing (except talkpages)" Thanx for answer. --Samofi (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Under Construction Tag for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

The purpose of the tag is to let others know that an article is being rewritten, restructured, expanded or extensively copyedited. This notification becomes especially important when the article in question is an FA or has a large number of viewers per day; both of these are true with Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Work can be extensive, take several weeks and vary on the amount of work being done at one time. Some sections will be heavily copywritten or edited, while others will need less work. The time needed to complete this work can also depend on how many editors are at work and other priorities such as job, illness and other factors. Not everyone can be a Wiki editor 24/7—we also have lives to lead outside Wikipedia. If you are not sure whether work has stopped on an article and the tag should be removed, the best thing is to first ask the editor doing the majority of work on the article. This information can be easily accessed in the article's edit history. If you don't get a response from that editor within, say, a week, then it might be alright to remove the tag. Otherwise, patience can be the best course. (To User Perfect at Sunrise: I am copying everything above to 14jbella for his or her reference. You may answer the following on my talk page, but I would really like to know what business a third, previously uninvolved party has in commenting on I would consider a private talk page. If it is a legitimate policing function to ensure that abuse is not being perpetrated (one BTW that I had previously not heard of), that is one thing. Otherwise, I will report you to the proper authorities with all speed.) Jonyungk (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It was simply because 14jbella is a new, young and promising user, who I welcomed the other day, so I had her talkpage on my watchlist, and I wanted to prevent her feeling "bitten" or discouraged, by a post that to me came across as a bit unnecessarily aggressive. Just as, incidentally, your posting here now comes across as quite a bit more aggressive than necessary ("report you to the proper authorities"? really? what for, if I may ask?). But then again, I'm not a noob, so I can take it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Report ... Really? what for?" Since I did not know you were an administrator, for being someone who, as far as I knew, had no business inserting himself or herself into someone's private talk page. That can be considered rude and intrusive.

"Quite a bit more aggressive than necessary." Please note in my initial post to 14jbella that I tend to be blunt and direct. Fighting off a case of sinusitis, for which I am under antibiotics and pain meds and which curtailed my Wiki editing almost completely, has not helped my attitude. Neither has editing an article under the threat of FAR because no one suggesting that course of action will work on it, despite Wikipedia being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Again, I had no idea you were an administrator, nor did you identify yourself as such, so yes, I was going to get on you for nosing about where I was under the impression you did not belong. That, in my view, would have been well justified. Jonyungk (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be happy if you accepted this little intervention only because I happen to be an admin. It actually has nothing to do with me being one. I was just acting as what some people call a "friendly talkpage lurker". It's a wiki, so in principle there is no such thing as a conversation where some third party "doesn't belong". The crucial factor about whether inserting oneself in a conversation on another user's talkpage is good "wikiquette" is mainly whether it's done with a friendly intention towards the owner of the talkpage. In the present situation, any other user could have done just the same. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Image source

It's a long time past, but could you provide a more detailed source for File:Bouboulina.JPG. The link you've given is dead and the Wayback Machine has failed me. I just want to make sure all the ts are crossed before deleting it here. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Image source

Nirmal (Nirmal95 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC))

Dear Sir, I am extremely sorry for my work done in Wikipedia.I understand i am a very poor editor and need some time in perfecting my editing skills.I was under the impression the Hindu paper releases the images in the said license.The purpose of this is to convey to you my sincere apologies for any inconvenience you have experienced during these few weeks. I just returned from college and found your message in my talk page.I have also seen the complaints made against by another user.I have in a true sense not vandalized Wikipedia but wanted others to get authentic information.I have use the information from government websites.If i have done something wrong,please correct me. Sir, let me assure you that what happened was not vandalizing but out of laziness to provide citations.Can i copy the info from the info from govt websites and then add citations and references??(Nirmal95 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC))

No, you can't. You should never simply copy text from anywhere. You need sources to verify the facts that you write about, but the way these facts are expressed, the actual wording and structure of the article, must be your own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Some falafel for you! Nirmal95 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hello!

I would like to draw your attention on the Žigmund Pálffy article. I've added a well-referenced info about his Hungarian origin a few months ago, which became a target of vandals and later the issue was also moved to the talk page. While I presented a number of sources there, offered a solution by my best knowledge, and also invited a third opinion user via 3O, the other user, Omen1229 (talk · contribs), tendenciously declines every recommendation by both of us. Recently, the talk stucked at a point and instead of using the recommended ways to solve the problem, the dispute went totally off-topic. What is more, the article is muddled up by strange edits, wording, and a load of tags, which has nothing to do with it, since as written above, Omen1229 does not follow the steps he should make after tags are added to solve the problem.

The reason why I write to you is that you have put Omen1229 on topic ban per WP:DIGWUREN "due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing [4]". I don't know if this breaks the topic ban, however, his editing habits, which concentrates only on the above mentioned topics, and his attitude to push his point without taking the suggested steps, makes me think that his lone intention is to keep this situation up and to extend his battleground mentality on other articles that may be out of the reach of the topic ban.

Since it really looks like for me that it cannot be done on the normal way, I would like to ask you to take a look at the article and the talk page, and relying on your wisdom and knowledge, help the dispute to be solved. Thanks, Thehoboclown (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Defaulting User

[User:Varghesejacob|Varghese Jacob]] has created a new page Central Civil Services (India).Some of the services listed are not got through the civil service exam as listed by him(http://www.upsc.gov.in/exams/notifications/2011/CS2011/cs2011_eng.pdf)--My reference In addition, most of his writings are not backed by references and is his personal commentary.I request you to please revert thte said page and ask him to add refrences and deleted unsourced material,if i do it he may call me a vandalizer again!!(Nirmal95 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

Copyright Violation

Since you helped me before, I hope you can again. I found that over half of the article [[JS Bach] was plagiarized from a copyrighted book. I put a link on the talk page to the book, and deleted the copyrighted info, but I am not sure what else I have to do about it. Please help. Thanks 14jbella (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much for helping me resolve that problem. :D14jbella (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Also, could you please help me cite sources on the JS Bach page. I am trying to use the <ref name> tag, since I am trying to cite the same source more than once, but I keep getting a message that says "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Baroquenet; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text." I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Thanks!~~~~ 14jbella (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I was finally able to figure it out :D. I just had an extra "/" thrown in.14jbella (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found it. Sorry for not replying earlier; I was busy with some other technical stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some more data on image uploaders...

Hey Fut.Perf., I thought you might be interested in this as you keep tweaking your upload wizard. Steven Walling and I just wrapped up a template A/B test with ImageTaggingBot, which identifies files that are missing source and/or license information. We tested some alternate warnings for a month, and here's the data from a month's worth of bot warnings. We're going to dig into this with the help of our data analyst Faulkner to see if changing the wording made any difference in people's ability to figure out how to save their files. But for now, one very obvious and interesting data point is that it seems many more users upload images and leave the source and especially the license fields blank than even attempting to put any information there. What this suggests to me is that they a) don't know what "source," "license," and "tag" mean, and/or b) assume those fields are optional and ignore them. I just thought you might find that info useful, especially the fact that the license tag seems to be a particularly significant pain point. I'll let you know if we find anything else useful in the data. Good luck with the wizarding and keep me updated :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ETA: The numbers, in case you don't want to wade through that enormous Google doc :)

• a little under 1,000 people got the "no source, no license" warning for leaving both fields blank, around 1,200 got "untagged" for no license
• about 150-250 got the warning for putting something in either of those fields, though it wasn't correct. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It more or less confirms my impression from patrolling, and it also fits my figures from February. For instance, I found that one out of ten new files had a completely blank description page; with new contributors it was one out of three. This, to my mind, points towards simply not being aware of the importance of licensing/sourcing in general. I believe there are several other typical categories of errors:

1. people who understand they are supposed to provide source/licensing, but think it doesn't really matter and it's okay to cheat the same way they would elsewhere on the web. They will typically declare everything "own work".
2. people who have a vague understanding they need sources, but don't understand licensing. They will often add a very brief description consisting of only a name, without specifying whether that is the subject of the photograph, their own name, the name of some other photographer etc.
3. people who think license tags are simply a formality, and they can put in whatever random license tag they choose, failing to understand that a license can be given only by the creator.
4. people who simply overlook the license dropdown. In the traditional upload page it is placed very stupidly at the bottom of the form, below a big chunk of unnecessary "help" text.

In my wizard I'm trying to catch most of these errors, especially by giving more descriptive labels to the license box depending on the different cases, and by insisting that all fields are filled in before the upload can technically be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCMAC

Hi Future Perfect. Just wondering if you could take a look at the edits there by Gogofoto (talk · contribs), who seems to be rewriting the policy without consensus. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Euboean alphabet

I understand your anxiety to delete/reduce to a link the Euboean alphabet in order to promote and expand your article that you have created (Archaic Greek alphabets), yet, on behalf of a number of contributors I urge you to let this article expand. --Odysses (₪) 23:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What have contributors got to do with anything? It's about readers. There is nothing in the Euboean alphabet page that a reader couldn't get more conveniently at the more comprehensive article, and there is nothing inherently special about the Euboean alphabet that would make it in need of a more separate treatment than all the dozens of other local varieties. What do you want to expand about it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general idea: Many contributors, to contribute to as many articles and ideas and let the reader freely read and decide by himshelf. What do you propose? To reduce wikipedia into a limited number of articles and decide for them what they must read? --Odysses (₪) 01:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You are not making any sense at all, I'm afraid. Please read again what I wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Upload Wizard

I don't know what your intentions were, but the new system is no good. It removes the form to select categories to upload no-free images. Or its there, and too difficult to locate quickly and easily.Jasper420 16:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please try it out. Those options are all under the "This is a copyrighted, non-free work" section; the one you are looking for is probably under "official cover art". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it working. Few suggestions (after testing with an album cover, which is my primary objective on Wikipedia) : 1. Don't make it automatically add images to the users watchlist. That could get a little tedious when one has uploaded 1000s of images. 2.Explaining how "the intended use of this file meets this criterion" seems redundant after checking the "this image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". 3. The "brief description of the contents of this file" should be an optional box. Other than those 3 points, I'll admit everything else seems pretty damn smooth.Jasper420 16:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I won't go quite so far as to say "no good" but it is very important that the first thing a user sees is a page telling them that uploads to the Commons are preferred. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They see it immediately on clicking "this is a free work", and then again when they're done with the input and about to submit (at which point the script lets them take their description and send it straight to Commons from there). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Upload Wizard user testing

Hi there,

thanks for working on improving to improve the file upload process.

As you know, we put significant effort into the Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard as the preferred method to upload free media files. It supports batch uploads, automatic metadata extraction, and other features. It also has a built-in licensing tutorial, but minimizes form/instruction creep along the way. We've run a large number of user tests to validate and iterate its design.

However, we didn't improve the Wikipedia entry point and the process for uploading non-free files significantly, and I agree there's still significant room for improvement there.

One concern I have about the new method is that it reduces the visibility of the Commons Upload Wizard, and in fact pushes people through the old Commons form under some circumstances. Our goal probably ought to be to get people to Upload Wizard for the highest % of free licensing cases that we can.

But the main point of my message is to ask whether you'd be interested in getting access to usertesting.com credits. This is an easy way to ask people to complete uploads through the new system, compare it with the old system, and see where they fail/struggle. You'd have to clean up after the test uploads, and you'd need to give them step-by-step instructions what to do (I could help you with the latter to ensure the test design doesn't bias the testers). But I'd be happy to give you access to some 10-20 tests as you develop the feature. These result in video recordings (example). Let me know if you'd like that, or email me at erik at wikimedia dot org.--Eloquence* 23:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that offer. This testing method sounds interesting and I might take it up a bit later. I'm of course already getting quite a bit of useful feedback from simply observing the uploads as they come in, and honestly that amount of feedback is more than enough to keep me busy right now, getting some initial bumps ironed out, and there are already some useful indications about what further improvements could be made based on what I'm seeing, so I feel the usertesting will have to wait a little bit.

About the visibility of the Commons Wizard, I think the question is, here too, how to balance information value with instruction creep and information overload. In the old system we had, the links to Commons were huge, almost annoyingly impossible-to-miss nag screens. Still, a very large number of people were ignoring them. So perhaps the question is not so much how "visible" those notices are, but when and how they are offered to the user. The new wizard currently gives the user the option of jumping to Commons at three points: (a) right in the beginning (through an admittedly small link at the bottom); (b) during the input phase, the moment they click "free work", and (c) at the end, when they have finished their input and are ready to upload. The first of these two links go to the Commons Wizard. The third goes to the traditional Commons upload form instead, but that is mainly because at that point, switching to the Wizard would mean discarding all the work the user has already done creating the description, so it seemed more user-friendly to preserve it and forward it to Commons through the old form. (What we could add, of course, would be another friendly note in the intervening system message at that point: "You will now be redirected to a page on Commons to complete your upload. Next time you upload a free file, you might want to use the Commons Upload Wizard, which makes uploading even easier.")

In any case, my initial impression is that the number of (real or allegedly) free items uploaded through the new form has actually been fairly low during the first hours of this test run, so maybe the system isn't that bad at getting the Commons recommendation across to its users after all. I certainly don't expect it to be worse in this respect than the old system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Giant bomb pax prime panel 2011.jpg

I am confuzzled, which tag is the correct one for pictures of panels? Thanks.--FLStyle (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In the case of File:Giant bomb pax prime panel 2011.jpg, I'm afraid there wouldn't be a suitable tag, because it will fail the non-free content criteria in any case. A non-free photograph of a group of people discussing at a conference could only come anywhere near to being debatable under WP:NFC if (a) it was a unique event of historic significance and (b) something about the visual detail of what the picture shows is crucial for understanding the situation, in a way that would make a mere verbal description of the event insufficient, and (c) these things are the object of extended discussion in the article. Neither of these conditions is fulfilled here. It's just a bunch of people having a discussion, in a generic type of situation that might well be repeated on some future occasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks for the quick reply.--FLStyle (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

GX4000 Controller

I don't see what the problem is, I uploaded an edited picture of one already available on Wikipedia, one which was originally uploaded by the owner, and which clearly stated that the owner had no problems with the picture being edited and re-used (so long as he was still credited, which he was). This is all linked to in the evidence section. Jesus.arnold (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies – I didn't notice the link was to a Commons image; thought it was just some external source. My mistake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And, I'll take this as a hint that we might need an extra section in the new upload wizard for images derived from existing Wikipedia/Commons files. I'll think about how to integrate that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast action, this whole image-uploading element of Wiki kind of stresses me out to be honest, I thought I'd done something wrong, glad it all seems alright. Jesus.arnold (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

???

Wikipedia changed the upload format and I dont know where to put the mac about us.png screenshot mind helping me? Thanks!

Yes, the new upload form is a test run. But you don't need that right now. The problem was merely that you described the file as free and self-made, but it's a screenshot from a copyrighted software, so it needs to have a fair use rationale. Just edit the description page and put something in about why you need this image and what you need it for. Doesn't have to be any particular template or stuff, just a simple description in prose will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File Upload wizard for Hindi Wikipedia

hey I saw your script for uploading files to english wikipedia. I want to do the same for Hindi wikipedia. I have created a page and copy-pasted your code but your javascript doesn't load. Can you please help me tweak your code/provide a code that would work for hindi wikipedia. AJ 17:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, nice to hear you liked the idea! I'll have a look if I can figure out what's going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, you didn't yet transfer the javascript page, did you? You will need to create the MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js and MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.css pages on your wiki. In the .js code, you will probably have to tweak a few places where the name "en.wikipedia.org" is hardcoded and exchange it with your local wiki name. There are also a few non-localized English message texts hardcoded in the .js file, and of course the names of the templates and template parameters to be used in the file descriptions. As you have probably noticed, most of the rest of the text is simple wikitext stored in the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard page itself, so they can be easily translated in place. When you do that, it's important to keep the various "id=" attributes unchanged, because the script refers to them in many places, and be carful with the nesting of the many embedded table and <div> elements, because they are easy to mess up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, another thing: you are not an administrator on hi-wp, are you? The program files in the MediaWiki namespace can only be edited by administrators. Alternatively, you could initially keep the js code in your own user space (as User:AJ.iitm/uploadwizard.js), but in this way anybody who wants to use the system will first have to individually activate the script for themselves. For the script to be immediately accessible for everybody, it has to be in the MediaWiki namespace, where all pages are protected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hypatia's portrait removal

Hi, You removed the head of Hypatia claiming that it's unbearably ugly and historically worthless.

Hypatia Source: Elbert Hubbard

Ugly or not is a WP:POV. In my POV she's not ugly. I was wondering if you'll replace it with another more appropriate or leave the Infobox headless? --Odysses (₪) 23:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This has repeatedly been discussed on the article's talkpage, and frankly, I'm now a bit tired of that debate. No, I'm not going to replace it with some other image, because there aren't any images of her. There is no image that could conceivably have any real, encyclopedic function at that point, other that sugaring up the page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The upload wizard is broken?

I just posted at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard#File upload seems to be broken at the moment that file upload seems to be broken at the moment. Thanks! Banaticus (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that this issue is a known bug that relates to the recent upgrade of the MediaWiki software at Commons and various other places. Wikipedia is still on v. 1.18 but Commons etc are on v. 1.19. I first hit the problem around the time of that upgrade. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, thanks for giving me this nice excuse, but it was actually a stupid bug I accidentally introduced with a small edit today. I fixed it about half an hour ago. Could you try again? You'll probably have to purge your browser cache after clicking on the start link, to get the most recent version of the script. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So does en-WP not use the same wizard as Commons? It reads as if I am mixing apples and oranges. Beer and Scotch, Gin and Tonic etc are just dandy, but Apples and Oranges don't do it for me ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the Commons wizard is not really suitable for en-wp, or it would have to be changed quite a lot to become useable here. This is about a new script I've been working on, specially taylored to our needs here. It's quite new and has only been under test for a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We have some clever people hanging out at en-WP! Thanks for the explanation. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:RobertHWilson and the images again

Since you were involved in the AN:I discussion and the block before (and since it seems you were the one who posted a notice about his latest upload), I thought I might point out that the licensing info he has added to the most recent image is false and he clearly has not tried to understand the intellectual property policies that the block was intended to give him time to learn. This is the second time since the 48-hour block that he has done this. Should I take this back to AN:I, or is notifying you of this disruptive editing enough? Thanks for your help. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Seeing as they had got yet another final warning only a week ago, and went on to vandalize your user page in response to the latest tagging, I've blocked them indefinitely for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your promptness. Thanks again. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I really hate to keep bugging you about this, but an IP that has already been established as belonging to this user has been editing post-block. In particular, this turned up in my watchlist and appears consistent with the disruptive behavior. It really does seem that he wants to help (in fact, he has been keeping the article about Georgia Tech's current basketball team up-to-date), but this is nonetheless problematic. Thanks in advance for looking into this. LaMenta3 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

File:PTH Forum Message.JPG

Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I had uploaded the following image file from the website http://pakteahouse.net/2011/01/04/the-ilm-ud-din-narrative-and-murder-of-salman-taseer/ . I've very clearly mentioned the copyright status as well as source of the file. The essence of the source is that it traces the origins of the current intolerant situation of current Pakistan. One of these posts on this social networking website sums up the general views of the society and the complex fall outs. The English translation is referred in the article and the Urdu text is uploaded to support it. I therefore request you to restore the deleted image and, inline with your experience, modify the description, if you find any anomaly. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

I had tagged the file not because it lacked copyright and source, but because it lacked a fair use rationale. Instead of providing such a rationale, you edit-warred removing the tag. Normally such files get deleted after a week, but since your edit-warring was causing disruption, I opted to cut it short and delete it earlier. The alternative would have been to block you.

As for me filling in the missing rationale, that wouldn't be possible, because I actually think no valid rationale can be given, for several reasons:

• The anonymous blog comment from which this was taken is not a reliable source. Citing this comment as a source would be giving undue weight to a non-notable opinion. At the same time, citing it with the implication that it is a representative example illustrating "general views" of the issue would be an instance of illegitimate "original research", because the determination of what this post is representative of was not itself proposed by a reliable source.
• Even if a treatment of this posting were legitimate, illustrating it with an image would still not be necessary. That's because it's merely a matter of text. If there was a need to cite the text of that blog post, you could do just that: cite it.
• Moreover, giving graphic illustration of the text is particularly useless in this case, as it's in a language and script that the huge majority of our readers don't recognize.

So, the upshot is: if you insist, I could restore the file for you, if you promise to stop revert-warring over the tag. It would still be tagged with the "no rationale" template, until you provide such a rationale. Even then, however, the whole process would likely end up a waste of time for both of us, because if I'm not convinced by the rationale (and right now, honestly, I don't think anybody could come up with one that would convince me), I'd then nominate the file for a formal deletion discussion at WP:FFD. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well edit-warring and saying "I am supreme than you" is not something a humble editor like me can dare to do. If, for some reason concurring with my belief, you feel restoration of the file will serve a purpose, you can do so. In either case, I do not take any personalized view of the issue and would gladly cooperate with you on a Wiki Project in future, if needed. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

File:Kalashnikov-rifle-845.jpg

Hi. I've done what you asked me for the issues over the Kalashnikov rifle picture. Please remove template for deleting file. Thanks!

I'm afraid that's not sufficient. Why would there be a need for a critical discussion of some TV programme in which somebody happens to hold a Kalashnikov, in the article about Kalashnikovs? What TV programme was that, and why is it important for the article? (I suspect what you are trying to do is actually not discuss the TV programme, but simply use the image for illustrating what a Kalashnikov looks like. That is not possible.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Image: Sir Thomas Stepney's Study

I've uploaded this image of the study which is my image - I assume I've uploaded it to the wrong place as it seems to look like it's not my own image. Could you please tell me where I can upload this image? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llanelly House (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for asking, and thanks for the nice photographs. If these are your own photographs and you wish to release them for free use, you can just click the "edit" link at the top of the image page (File:Stair Hall.jpg) and add a license tag, like this:

{{self|cc-by-sa 3.0}}

This means that you agree they can be used not only on Wikipedia, but also elsewhere and for any other purpose, which is a precondition we have for accepting images. The way you uploaded them initially, you seemed to be saying there was no such free license. In that case, we'd unfortunately have to decline using them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Resurgence of Sock-P?

Hi. Don't you think those accounts User:CanarianIsland and User:Speminerror look exactly the same as the multi blocked User:BouzoukiGr (and his multiple socks)? Same field of interest, same obsessions with making Greek things more Greek and more Ancient Greek, same English and so on...--Phso2 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

my edits Let the ancient Greece by the side, You confuse the arabic with turkish it is easily to pass me like troll because you are just...older? My Writing in english is correct and Turkish makams are far away different from arabic --CanarianIsland (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Phso2 (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

again with User:Mithodia : same purposes (to replace every instance of "Ottoman" with "Byzantine" or "Smyrnean", changing what the original contributor wrote without challenging the content itself), same English, same habit to put sources that don't support his claims.--Phso2 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned

See User talk:Lvivske#WP:1RR violation at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, where I mentioned your name regarding a previous DIGWUREN sanction on Lvivske. If I made any mistakes in my summary, please comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		awarded to Future Perfect at Sunrise for tiresome admin tasks in difficult areas, who has shown to be a person of integrity. A true Wikipedian is more than just an editor of articles. Thank you. Poeticbent talk 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Troll sock

[5]. Is "leaving". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

train left the station --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

New upload process

After reading the talk page, I see you've been harangued by all sides. Just wanted to commend you on sticking with it and making a (bold) attempt to help Wikipedia's upload schema. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

re Warning

Seen and responded. --biblbroks (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

I already wrote a reply, but just wanted to leave a note here just in case. Marrante (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Today, I took a closer look at the stamp in the middle of the card, to see if I could make out what was on top of it. I needed to open the file in some image software to be sure of the first word, but it was as I guessed, "Arbeiter Mörder". I added that to the description, plus mentioned whose face was on the stamp..

Notesenses

Editing from IPs he's making the same edits as a couple of months ago[6][7].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for the File Upload Wizard

File:Yes

The da Vinci Barnstar

This barnstar is for "anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work (programming and tools, bot building, link repair, Mediawiki developers, etc.). This award may also be given to Cabalists, Mediators and Arbitrators – whose work is essential to the functioning of Wikipedia. Alternative: {{The Technical Barnstar}}." —WP:*#General Barnstars

Looking at some Gadgets, I noticed in the page history of MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js that you single-handedly developed the script for Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. This is fantastic work and deserves to be recognised. Well done, and thank you! AGK [•] 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, that's appreciated. There's still quite a bit of work to be done though. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't think you seem to understand the photo process. They're all under a fair-use license, with credit going towards the owners of it. With that license, the purpose is the secondary thing to thing of, but not as vital than a legit license, so there's no reason to have these pictures deleted. RAP (talk) 15:51 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the purpose of use is not "secondary". It has to meet the stringent requirements of WP:NFC, which is a fundamental policy of this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If they were "fundamental", then why weren't the issues brought up when the pictures were first uploaded months ago? (Excluding the "Better Angels" one.) RAP (talk) 16:41 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You've deleted some of the pictures used in the following articles: Bhavan's Sri RamaKrishna Vidyalaya, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's Public School, BHEL and All Saints High School (Andhra Pradesh). I've checked the images, referenced the source and only then inserted the image. I therefore request you to please consider restoring and re-inserting the images in the articles. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

The images you uploaded were non-free images that could have been replaced with a free alternative, and they were uploaded under a false description. You used a tag that said they were screenshots of websites and would be used "for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question". None of them were. All of them were used merely to illustrate some other topic (some school or something), and any other, self-made and freely licensed photograph of those schools or its students etc. would have served the same purpose. Sorry, but these images can't be used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Social media

Aren´t pictures from social media free license ???? --Nakurio (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, in general, they are not. If you read the instructions in the upload form, you'd have known: a source site is freely licensed only if it explicitly says so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

removing my posts

who are you to remove my posts in the talk pages like that and why? i think some "wikipedians" have passed the limit of sencorship in international "relations" issues and i should contact the wikipedia employees

Your posts were not removed, they were archived. Future Perfect is an administrator here and was following Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"following wikipedia policy"? and what policy says you can remove posts whenever you like from talk pages? pleeeeasssseeee don't try to pass this BS TO ME . i am now here and will call other greeks too, we'll not tolerate the suppression of greek statement. i will reopen the discussions about the names soon. you people are unprincipled and what you've been doing enraging--Frizstyler (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There has been a ruling at ARBCOM, which is I suppose the highest community decision making level, about the name of the Republic of Macedonia article. Discussions about it on that articles talkpage are quickly archived. Calling other Greeks is WP:Canvassing, and can easily lead to a block. CMD (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

you think you run wikipedia don't u? haha so pathetic. wait and see. calling fellows to troll like you do is indeed wrong, but calling fellows to state opinions in the talk page is nothing but a right thing to do when you are being outnumbered by internet clowns--Frizstyler (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from making unfounded WP:Personal attacks. They have a tendency to lead to blocks. CMD (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:History of New England.pdf

I disagree with your speedy of this file although I won't be asking for restoration. Please see my comments at ANI for more on my reasoning. Dpmuk (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse!

Hi! Future Perfect at Sunrise, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here Sarah (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bandurist

Hi -- I gather that you have imposed some strict conditions on User:Bandurist regarding editing on Ukrainian topics. Can you please review his edits today at John Demjanjuk, particularly this one, a revert (with no effort to discuss) of my earlier edit. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I really can't understand why this guy simply won't wrap his head around that topic ban. I've blocked him half a dozen times for breaking it before. Not much choice but to block him indef this time. This was not an isolated occurrence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, abut the picture

I believe the image in non copyrighted and i was given permission by the owner carson allen, so it should be fine Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that there is no explicit copyright claim is unfortunately not enough to assume lack of copyright – things are copyrighted by default, even without such a notice. If the owner has given you permission, that's fine, but we need to make sure the permission is a fully free one, i.e. including free re-use outside Wikipedia, for all purposes. The way you tagged the image now, as being non-free, means we will have to get rid of it, unless such a fully free release is granted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ghosting caused by field blending during deinterlacing.jpg

Dude, this is just one meaningless frame from a video. Sure I can generate such a video myself, but the point was to show that even professional videos can look bad if not converted correctly. I don't think that this frame somehow infringes copyright of video owner. There is nothing in this image that makes sense to anyone besides showing that the video has technical issue. Please, reconsider your intention to remove it. Mikus (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, we have to be strict about these principles. If it is possibly to generate such a video ourselves, then that's what we'll have to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Aquae Sulis artist impression.jpg

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at File talk:Aquae Sulis artist impression.jpg.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noted

[8] Noted, and thanks for your intervention. Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - I've reworded my post so that it doesn't mention him. Prioryman (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted images of Iranian rial banknotes

I noticed that you deleted all the images on Iranian rial banknotes in this list. While I agree with your deletion, the information regarding when the copyright expires for Iranian currency expires is being discussed here. It is my belief that they were in fact not copyrighted. While, at the time, it was believed that they expired at 70 year, per Iranian law, it is probable that the 30 year exception for "legal personality" applies here, making all of these image PD.

Anyway to my question. The reason you listed these for deletion was "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". I wonder, if it turns out the image are actually PD, does the fact that the uploader was blocked, prevent the images from being "Undelete"? Can I request they restored without having to upload them all again? Also, how do I go about requesting they be undeleted?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My deletion was in fact due merely to the fact that it was a banned user. If a legitimate user wishes to take over responsibility for the images in terms of copyright etc., I'd have no problem undeleting them. How about the age of these designs; are we certain they are older than 30 years? I couldn't find that documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

They should be all over 30 year as that is when the designed changed. I will get back with you if they need to be undeleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Block of Pigsonthewing

Hello FP, while I agree it would be very good if PotW stayed away from the Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), his declining to do so is not sufficient reason for a block. Blocking is a reasonable solution for when someone is actively doing something which a block can technically prevent. You can only block to prevent damage from what someone is doing, not because of what they are NOT doing, imho. He has appealed his block and it would be a good gesture if you were the one to reverse it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But he was doing something damaging, and the block does serve to prevent him doing that: poking that Hawkins guy on all sorts of pages. And he had explicitly announced he would continue doing that. So, no, as far as I'm concerned, the block stands – of course only until the moment he promises to leave the guy alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's under BLPSE, you might want to log it. T. Canens (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I had explicitly announced, or done, no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of BOP Related Articles.

Hi, as I can see from your contributions, I can see you have deleted one image, and listed one for deletion. Now, like I said, I have seen from your contributions. Now, next time please notificate me on my talk page. However, I do have a bone to pick, have you read those two images rationales? They both have clear rationales, with both of them being needed. I really hope you have checked the differences from the 1st revision of the image to the 2nd, as you will see that it has a stronger rationale than before. Now, these images have a purpose, and are needed to broader the readers knowledge of the subject. So please re-instate them. MayhemMario 16:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You recreated File:Dead Man Walking (Body of Proof).jpg immediately after it was deleted through a valid FFD process. You should have known that this makes it subject to immediate speedy deletion. Your new rationale didn't overcome the problems for which it was deleted, and even if it did, you should not have simply re-uploaded it but asked for a deletion review. The rationale for File:Society Hill (Body of Proof).jpg is very weak too, although I have to acknowledge that at least it is individual (which is more than can be said about most other episode images), so since you restored it to the article it too will have to go to FFD now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Thank you very much for being nice. I rather do lose my rag, as I get annonyed that the images are needed, though they are being deleted. Society Hill image is needed much more than the other, to understand the readers knowledge of the characters dress sense, etc. Would you recommend me uploading Dead Man Walking image again? Or not? MayhemMario 17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Threat charges

As a recent recipient of a "threat charge" from Cla68, you may wish to see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges (2nd nomination). Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi FP, Sorry about being a bit snarky here, but if you've got an 8.2 meter telescope, along with a whole facilities worth of astro-photographic equipment, located in dark skies at or above 4200 meters, then I'd love to hear about it. I'll gladly take thousands upon thousands of pictures and upload them to Commons with free licenses.

I mean... come on man. I understand that we should prefer free imagery. I don't completely agree with the NFCC, but I'm not fighting it, and I'm certainly not out to intentionally subvert it (unless you're seeing something in my editing history to indicate otherwise?). To be blunt, from my perspective it appears that you're simply marking every new image with even a remote chance of being deleted and hoping for that to stick. Your history doesn't give me any confidence to assume good faith. Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you. I'm not even here for an explanation, to be honest. If you want to get File:Galaxy LEDA 074886.png deleted, either speedily or otherwise, then that's fine. I don't care to hear about it, so I'd appreciate it if you would quit posting those (rude) canned notices on my talk page.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I didn't actually claim the image is replaceable. I said it needs a real, non-boilerplate rationale that explains how it isn't. You used the canned standard rationale for cases of artworks that are themselves the subject of an article. Your FUR says, "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work". This is quite plainly false. The article is about the thing shown in the image, not about the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pls take a look

You recently had to delete many images uploaded by User:Wikiwatcher1 - could we get you to look at his/her newest stolen images uploaded. See here for the new copyright images uploaded recently.Moxy (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please look at this

Hi FPaS, as I regard you as someone who is willing to look at the hard issues, could you please look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia for me. You will see many of the familiar names there, plus a few new ones. I respect your opinion in these matters, even if others have been quick in the past to shut you down from investigating further. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Doubts

Hi there FPS, VASCO from Portugal here,

since you blocked the user in the first place, i thought i'd brief you on the following: User:Aciyokrocky was blocked indef for some wiki-crimes, as the upload of copyrighted (does that word exist?) images, and i also know for experience he also removed stuff in box without explanation.

For instance, he edited massively at Luis Enrique Martínez García, removing stuff in the infobox. Now, he could have had returned, as User:Steadyfingers, in García's page, he inserted a picture - having already been warned by someone it's not acceptable - and removed the same stuff in box he had already removed as Aciyokrocky. I rolledback the rest; this could also be him, as anon (here, and you can "see" him remove the stuff i told you about in box http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Enrique_Martínez_García&diff=prev&oldid=483880388).

Is it possible to "execute" a checkuser to be sure about this? Thanks a lot in advance, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, i see you have already notified the new account (in case he has been also Rocky) about an unduly uploaded pic (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steadyfingers#File_source_and_copyright_licensing_problem_with_File:Abdullahavci.jpg). Also, i've checked both list of "contributions" (ROCKY's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aciyokrocky and FINGERS' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Steadyfingers, they are 100% the same, has to be the same "user"). Too many coincidences methinks :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother, thought i was going well reporting a vandal (a sock is that isn't it?), guess i was not. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away most of the time for the last few days and didn't really find time to look into this. I'll need a bit of time to catch up with things. But anyway, thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it now. Yes, this looks very much like a block-evading sock, displaying the same pattern of disruptive editing. I've blocked him now. Thanks again for bringing it up, and sorry for not responding earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Many many thanks for your help! I also apologize for being so hasty, people have other business to attend, here and in real life. Thanks again, keep it up --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Mukta Sawant

u mean i shudnt upload image 2 wikipedia.मूक्ता (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to upload images, if you are prepared to demonstrate that their copyright/licensing is okay (usually that means you created them yourself), and if they are useful for the encyclopedia. Things like photographs of your pet turtle are usually not very useful, and pictures of your favorite singers or actors that you found somewhere on the internet are typically not freely licensed, so please don't upload those.

Oh, and by the way, when you write here on Wikipedia, please use proper English and proper spelling. We don't use those netspeak abbreviations here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A question

if i take a picture f a wwe superstar or wwe diva on a live event or at a signing, am i then the owner of the picture or is it still trademarked and can´t be uploaded to wiki?--Nakurio (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if they are genuinely self-made, they are okay for publishing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• thanks for the quick info --Nakurio (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Future

How are you old buddy? I hope you are doing great. I need an admin favor from you, I hope I can't get it? I nominated List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.) for featured list, however, during the process the discussion here was opened. You can see that it was inactive for two weeks and I can't see any concencus. Could you close it? Thanks — Tomica (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry If I hurry up you, but will you be able to do it? — Tomica (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not my cup of tea really. I have to admit I have very very little interest in pop charts, and even less interest in articles about pop chart rankings, so working my way through a discussion about the merits of having one big boring list article or several smaller boring list articles doesn't really sound very appealing to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. No problem I will find another admin to ask. Thanks anyway :) — Tomica (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Permission for Wikipedia

Maybe you could answer the question about dropdown menus at File:Edmund Fitzgerald Passing Under the Bluewater Bridge.jpg#I don't get it? The file seems to have been uploaded using your file upload wizard, so you probably know better than I what dropdown menu he is talking about. I know that the discussion isn't on the talk page, but the user started it on the file information page and since the file is just going to get deleted per WP:NFCC#8 anyway, I don't think that it really matters where the conversation takes place. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion; I probably would have missed it otherwise. Those permission details are indeed easy to misunderstand. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Winnecke.jpg

You deleted this file when in fact it was uploaded with the full permission of the author and owner of the work, with all rights released. As the basis for deleting the image you linked to a page (http://1061evansville.com/tags/lloyd-winnecke/) which cites WinneckeForMayor.com (this website is temporarily down), a website which I myself designed at the request and direction of the subject, Lloyd Winnecke. The bottom line is that you deleted this image without justification. It was up correctly and needs to be restored.--YHoshua (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Victory.png

You deleted this file when in fact it was uploaded with the full permission of the author and owner of the work, with all rights released. This file is owned by the Evansville Convention and Visitors Bureau, whose previous chairman, Steve Schaefer, granted full permission to upload the work to Wikipedia. It was up correctly and needs to be restored.--YHoshua (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What I was seeing was three images uploaded by you, all claimed to be your own work, all in small-scale web resolution, without exif data, all published previously on other websites, none of them acknowledging those other websites as previous publications, none of those other websites visibly crediting you or anything recognizably related to you for the casual reader. For one of these images, you have right now admitted that it was in fact not your own work. So no, it was not correctly uploaded, even if the owner did grant you that permission, and all of this together throws considerable doubt on the veracity of your uploads. Please re-upload File:Christian-Watford.jpg in full original size and with your camera's exif data, so we can be reasonably sure that at least that one was genuine, and provide evidence of Mr Schaefer's permission via OTRS ([email protected]). Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not the photographer, which is what I meant by stating it was "not" my own work. However, I had and have 100% full permission to upload and use the image, as was noted when the image was uploaded. Coincidentally, in addition to being chairman of the Evansville CVB, Mr. Schaefer is also the Chief of Staff of Mayor Winnecke and, along with me, ran his campaign. Evidence of the foregoing will be provided via OTRS ([email protected]).--YHoshua (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Defetistul

Hi, and thank you for stepping in. Given several clues - timing, wording, subjects, mannerisms, "humor" - and the IP (clue), he is most likely User:Anittas. Check out my talk page on rowiki - he's my numero uno fan there as well. Not exactly a sock"master", but getting there. Dahn (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Damon-Bailey-SI.jpg

Thanks for cleaning up my sloppiness. Please review the file noted here and let me know if you concur with the licensed use.--YHoshua (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that User:Stefan2 agrees with its use if it's reduced, which it now is. Thanks.--YHoshua (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that I have been mentioned here. I see that the previous WP:NFCC#3b violation has been fixed. The file was used in the article Damon Bailey, but this looked like a blatant violation of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#10c, so I removed it from the article. The file is additionally used in the article Indiana–Kentucky rivalry where we might have a WP:NFCC#8 violation since the cover only is mentioned briefly. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Želimir Žilnik image

File:Želimir Žilnik, Dec 2011.jpg was taken by me and so I don't see the copyright issue. Did I license it wrongly? The content shows the subject at the debate referenced in the corresponding section of the Marx Reloaded article, it is not a generic image of the subject and is context-specific. Proudhonjunior (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. Yes, there was an issue with the licensing. If you took this photo yourself, then you could release it under a free license, which would make it okay for use. You just need to make it clear that you are okay with the image being freely available for re-use by others. The way you uploaded it, you were describing it as non-free, which unfortunately means we can't use it. If you wish, I can restore it for you and you can then add a "{{self|cc-by-sa}} or other free licensing tag to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:SM-100-folder-knife.JPG

You deleted this as F9. Could you check if it is identical to Commons:File:SM-100 knife examle (Strider Knives).jpg which was uploaded by the same user and claimed to be own work? If so, it should probably be deleted from Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Yes, same file. The en-wp upload was sourced to a website, www.summitmaterials.com (cf. [9]), so the "own work" claim is dubious. Same situation with the other image he uploaded (File:SM-100-bearing-components.JPG). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Any news?

Hi. Any news re: this? I'd really like to be able to process image redlinks properly... Thanks, Nikthestoned 13:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, you're right, there should be some more work on this, but I'm afraid I haven't been finding much time for more improvements for the last two weeks or so. The trouble is that in order to get the user preference thing installed there will have to be changes to the global script files, which is not something I would want to try just on my own, and which will require quite a bit of discussion, I suppose. And, what's worse, to get the handling of the redlinks working properly, we'll probably need the devs to do something on the level of php system variables. The thing is, I'm still pretty certain it wasn't the introduction of the wizard that actually broke the red links handling in the first place – it's deeper than that. If the wizard had not been introduced, those redlinks would now be going to the page that is now Wikipedia:Upload/old, and that page could never handle the wpDestFile= parameter either. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 97#Changes to file redlinks in 1.19? for the discussion we had some time ago about this, and bugzilla:23140. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Victoria-Baranova-rider.jpg

Well I'm not an advance editor of Wikipedia, here is my original correspondence with Mr Benjamin,of Pedalmag- the supposed author of the work, who gave his consent.

I would like to inquire that is it possible that I can use/upload/edit Victoria Baranova (Rus) Luis Barbosa (UCI Track World Cup Cali Day 2 Results & Photos UPDATED) for an article in Wikipedia?

I would appreciate if you answer me soon.

Thanks

[...] Benjamin Sadavoy [...] Apr 2 (3 days ago)

to me:

Approved...

Please do as Wikipedia standards are, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KATURQUOTE (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for making this effort at getting the permission for this photo. Unfortunately, in this form, the license statement he gave you isn't complete enough to count as a fully free license. We'd need a statement that explicitly permits free re-use not only on Wikipedia but also elsewhere and for any other purpose. In the absence of such a statement we can only treat it as a non-free photo, in which case it fails the "irreplaceability" criterion, so I'm afraid we won't be able to use it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Released to the public domain by Greek Wikipedia

It says that you understand Greek. Could you check File:PanosKammenos.jpg and correct the licence template? I don't think that Greek Wikipedia ever was the copyright holder of that file. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Image upload

Can you pls explain why you've deleted "Official parliamentary headshot of Andrew Leigh MP.jpg"? Andrewleigh (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It was uploaded with a reference to the copyright statements at [10], and claimed to be under the {{cc-by}} license. However, the license described on that source page is not cc-by, but cc-by-nc-nd (noncommercial only, no derivatives), which unfortunately doesn't count as a fully free license for our purposes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your ban of Omen1229

Hello FP. After a complaint on my talk page by Nmate, the scope of Omen1229's topic ban from "all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history" has been discussed at

• User talk:EdJohnston#Omen1229
• User talk:Omen1229#You were reported
• User talk:EdJohnston#Impeachment of your objectivity.

I advised Omen1229 not to edit Slovaks or its talk page, and suggested that he might ask you if he needs any further clarification. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to ask you what is new with review of my "opponents"[11]>[12], because CoolKoon wrote on my talk page his dubious view with personal attack again.[13] --Omen1229 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say something about this case. CoolKoon frequently attack Slovakia and Slovak editors and make a POV provocations and he is involved mostly in nationalistic disputes, here is the last one: [14]. Here is the next: [15], I could not react there to his question, because of my topic ban but here is such person: [16] and I am also deeply touched by this ethnic attack: "heavily biased Slovak editor" [17]. According to no-personal-attacks policy: "some types of comments are never acceptable: ethnic comments directed against another contributor". Clear case of ethnic personal attack against User:Omen1229 and discourtesy against contributors with Slovak ethnicity. --Samofi (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow and just wow. Seems like I'm the (old-)new anti-Slovak boogeyman on English Wikipedia now. Not only I single-handedly micromanage the edits of ALL the Hungarian editors (plus probably some of the admins too), but I obviously try my best to make Slovak editors' life as miserable as possible with all my little conspiracies and "dirty tricks". Are you actually listening to yourself?

Let me clarify the main reason I'm active in quite a few Slovak-related disputes on WP: apparently I'm the only Hungarian editor (out of those who edit history-related topics) who speaks Slovak (to a fairly acceptable degree I dare to say) and hence am able to verify all the Slovak sources inserted into the articles plus add a few if necessary. If my mere presence annoys you/drives you nuts, then I'm really sorry, but I can't help you. I have just as much right to engage in disputes and discussions as you do. These are the rules laid out by the community long before you came along. If you find them unacceptable, feel free to coerce the community into changing them (good luck with that) or find a different playground (the sites I've mentioned on Omen1229's talk page might be the ideal candidates).

I'm not sure about your complaints about the previous posts I've made (feel free to leave a message about them on my talk page even in Slovak so that we can discuss it in an environment that's more comfortable to you), but you could've mentioned Žigmund Pauliny-Tóth outright on Omen1229's talk page as well. I didn't know about him (seems like his life isn't part of the high school curriculum in Slovakia), but I still think that Žigmund Pálffy COULD have Hungarian ancestry. I've also asked for ANY source which could disprove that, but I haven't received any so far.

Oh and as for the personal attacks, do you STILL think after Omen1229's comment (Are you the manager of Nmate[46] and Norden1990[47]?) that my response wasn't in place and appropriate? I mean making such off-the-scale accusations makes one really doubt the commenter's sanity. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You always point to the other contributors when you are blamed. Btw I still consider you as an inteligent person, but try to make a look on your edit history. You have strong double measure. You supported PROBABLE origin of Zigmund Palffy based on his name. I know his family in Skalica and they are Slovaks - Zahoraks, his father worked in Vepos Skalica. Maybe 2-3 generations ago there is origin like you said. But Thebowclown written "ice hockey player of Hungarian ethnicity". Or you with Fakirbakir had the problem with "Slovak lands" with 1000 searches at Google-books but you had no problem with "Principality of Hungary" which is mentioned in few obscure sources. Do you realy believe that Magyar tribes established PRINCIPALITY in Carpathian basin in 895? I thought the first who united our former country was Geza around 972.. Majority of sources doesnt deal with term Principality of Hungary. About personal attacks of Omen1229, there is not mentioned ethnicity. When did you write something positive about Slovakia? I was reading your texts in Hungarian and only dirty about Slovakia. About beating of Hungarian students at school - it was such a time. Slovak students were beaten in KoH, Slovak students were beaten in CS if they were bad students, or if they speak with dialects. It was normal method in that time. My grandfather told that he said something in Slovak at school (about 1917 in Kezmarok) and he was beaten by "trstenica" but he put a "baranica" under pants and he was smiling.. Do you really need to point only such things? I cant understand one thing I had not call any contributor nationalist, I always used the sources (I agree that sometimes obscure, but who not?), after my first warning at Digwurgen I stopped to edit directly in articles, I used talkpages, but few days after it I was topic banned [18] by this admin after this my edit: [19]. You are opponent I can say, but do you really think that I am so danger, unobjective and my "role among all the editors that have been contributing to the overall disastrous editing atmosphere in this topic domain has been among the most unconstructive.."? And what is the conflict if the 7 editors from Hungary has one opinion and 1 from Slovakia different and it was discussed and supported by sources? Same opinion like me presented in this article: 207.224.80.206 who started this topic, than User:Sborsody.. --Samofi (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said I'm not a sports history expert (in fact I have little to no interest in the topic at all), so I'm basing my opinion purely on semantics. And why wouldn't I point to other contributors when it's me who you accuse of double standards and various other "anti-Slovak mishaps" citing stuff which I had nothing to do with? I didn't say that Pálffy is a Hungarian hockey player and neither did I push for such opinion anywhere. I just dared to say that he MIGHT have some Hungarian ancestry.

The mentioning of "Slovak lands" is fine as long as the context is appropriate (i.e. since the 15th century like you said yourself). But you seem to be complaining about my objections to the usage of the term to refer to lands "since the 5th century" (which's patent nonsense). That's akin to a(n imaginary) Hungarian editor who'd claim that Hungarians=Etruscs=Babylonians=Tibetans, then (after being reverted) he would accuse everybody of double standards, POV, masonic conspiracy etc. because of the revert of some outrageous and completely unverifiable claims.

The "Principality of Hungary" is actually part of Hungarian history curriculum in all the Hungarian schools (even the ones in Slovakia), so dismissing it completely is not a good idea. And calling the MIT, University of Oxford and University of Cambridge (among others) "obscure sources" is not a good idea either.

Actually if this conforms you I haven't written many positive things about Hungary or the US either, despite the fact that I've spent some time in both countries. This may sound a bit harsh but the reason I rarely say positive things about Slovakia is because there are very few occasions when something positive can be said about it at all. And it has nothing to do with ethnicity - the Hungarians of Slovakia are just as annoying (to say the least) as the Slovaks (or the Gypsies, which are annoying in an entirely different way). And I think that noticing the problems and talking about them is the very first step in the process of recovery, since ignoring them doesn't change anything.

Where did I say anything about beatings/beating of Hungarians at Slovak school? It was only Slota who started all this nonsense about his grandfather being beaten with a ferule for failing to recite the God's Prayer in Hungarian, but feel free to point it out if I said something similar.

The topic ban is really something you should discuss with the admin who gave it to you I'd say. I can't do anything about it and neither can any other admins (except to enforce it), because AFAIK they aren't allowed to overturn another admin's decision (only ArbCom is allowed to do that). -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Samofi and Omen: your topic bans include discussion of these ethnic topics on talk pages, including your own talk page and mine. A brief notice to me about a perceived need of administrative investigation of something might have been okay, but why are you again engaging in your topic squabbles here? CoolKoon: in reverse, please do not provoke these editors by engaging them in debates in topics they should not in fact be discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now this might sound cynical, but I'm really trying my best NOT to lure them into discussing topics they've been banned from. The reason I've started the discussion was in fact the mention of my nick on Omen1229's talk page and I've tried to concentrate on Omen1229's and Samofi's editing style/attitude ever since (instead of pursuing Hungarian-Slovak history topics which they're supposed to be banned from discussing). I can't say it's easy (because it's obviously the disagreement over HU-SK topics which led to the topic ban in the first place), but I'm really trying. Honest. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: Thank you for fast reaction about my violation of topic ban. I will more careful. So I will point very short now. You told I should edit different topic as my opponent Fakirbakir. You told you will keep your eyes on him. I changed topics but he is wikistalking me at article Pannonian steppe which I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pannonian_steppe&action=history and ruined my work. There was merger proposal about merging with Puszta from february and nobody reacted. Similar in the article about Carpathian highwaymen together with Koertefa http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betyárs&action=history . He use negative POVs in the article about Slovas. From Kamuszela who is problematic author from whom are Polish academical distanced and also this "The modern Slovak nation is the result of radical processes of modernization within the Habsburg Empire in the 19th century. The Slovak historical developments correspond to Gellner's theory of nationalism (It states that modern nations are products of nationalism rather than the other way round). This is contrary to the Slovak myth, which traces the beginnings of the Slovak nation back to the 9th century or even earlier.": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovaks&diff=484520963&oldid=484516775 He made here strong POV and synthesis. Sourceses told "proces which finished in 19th century" not that Slovaks are from 19th century.. He also called me nationalist and told that Slovakia is neo-fascist state (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slovakization&action=historysubmit&diff=366380475&oldid=364719731 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Hungary&diff=prev&oldid=447867205 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2011_Sep_06&diff=prev&oldid=447866999). How is it possible this kind of behavior without sanctions and he can edit Slovak related articles? Is he neutral? --Samofi (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: Fakirbakir is all the time stalking me. Is he obsessed by me? He again reacts to me outside of his usual topics: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_English_words_of_Hungarian_origin&action=history Is this normal? Will you ignore this? --Samofi (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Fakirbakir was obviously editing that article before you did, and it is certainly more within the scope of his "usual" topics than of yours, so who has been following whom here, I wonder? Also, I repeat: please stop engaging in debates about the topics you are topic-banned from, as you just did again, two paragraphs above this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Was he active at Pannonian steppe, Puszta, Betyars and Talk page of list of word before me? Pls links. You point only to my mistakes - I agree that he edited list of words before me, I did not notice. I only inserted cn tags and continued at talk page, so I checked only history of talkpage. He completely changed Puszta and Pannonian steppes without discussion. In that articles were about one month the merger proposals. If foolish bliss, this page would be full of flowers. --Samofi (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Again and again in violation of topic ban : [20]--Nmate (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone named Robman180 persistently vandalizes pages by uploading irrelevant and fanmade posters, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dark_knight_rises_poster.jpg. Also can you please remove the history of the image? Thanks. Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Before I take action against this user, I'd like to see a bit of documentation showing all these uploads really were fan-made or otherwise unauthentic. Do you know where he got them from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know where the image came from, but what I do know, most of the image came from this: http://cdn.batman-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/pg_32p.jpg which clearly shows that this is a fanmade poster. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about transcription

Hello FPS. I want to ask you something about the phonetic transcription. Is there any standardization regarding the way of phonetic transcription of the languages on Wikipedia? To be more precise, I will illustrate this example:

кога [ˈkɔga] ('when')

So, do I need to use the phonetic transcription or the romanization of the Macedonian? Do I put English translation in brackets and do I use italics for the Cyrillic letters? I know how to do all these things academically, but I was wondering if Wikipedia has established some principles regarding this. I am writing the Macedonian grammar article and I need this stuff. User Taivo reverted all grammar section in Macedonian language just because of the phonetic symbols. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have standardized much of this, but I'd listen to Taivo, because he edits linguistic stuff about languages with non-Latin scripts quite a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I would consider if it wouldn't be preferable to cite such examples straight in Latin transliteration, since that seems to be fairly common in Slavic/Cyrillic contexts, and there is a fairly ransparent, easy-to-read standard transliteration method available for Macedonian. Since that transliteration is so straightforward and pretty close to a phonemic transcription anyway, one could then do away both with the Cyrillic and with the IPA completely, except where you'd want to add IPA for discussions of dialectal pronunciation details and stuff like that. So, I might go for "koga ('when')"

If you do include Cyrillic, it should not be italicized (that's something we do have a rule for, if I remember correctly). Latin transliterations, in contrast, of course ought to be in italics. For the translation, I like the way you did it above, with single quotes and (usually) brackets.

By the way, since we were reverting each other earlier today about that mapping of alphabetic letters to phonemes, there's something about that three-way mappinɡ between /l, ɫ, l'/ and 〈л,љ〉 in the Friedman online grammar chapter cited in the external links, which seems to agree with the way it was presented before you edited it, as cited to Lunt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I would use the form "Cyrillic romanization translation in brackets". Taivo said phonetically, but since it is a table, I would go with romanization instead. About the sounds, yes there are sources and it really exists (different pronunciation of the letter љ and л). I wanted to simplify the table because the differences in pronunciation of the letters/sounds are elaborated in the article Macedonian phonology. However, if you think that we need to include all three sounds (l, ʎ and lʲ) then we can do it. Its not a huge problem for me. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ups, I forgot this. When I use the romanization, do I put the romanization in brackets along with the translation? Like in: Јас сум прочитал. (Jas sum pročital., 'I have read.'). Or is there any other Wikipedia guideline regarding this? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For Japanese, there is a fairly standard system due to the existence of a template: {{nihongo|English|Japanese|Transcription}} produces English (Japanese, Transcription) and {{nihongo| |Japanese|Transcription}} produces Transcription (Japanese). Wouldn't the same output syntax be applicable to other languages too? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure one could do it that way in many situations. But I'm not really certain there's that much of a pressing need for standardization anyway. I'd like to retain the flexibility of choosing which of the various components (non-Latin orthography, transliteration, phonetics, English gloss) I want and in which order, and the decision may well be quite different for different languages and different situations (e.g. is the original orthography recoverable from the Latin transcription; how close is the transcription to the phonetics; etc.) For instance, the template you mentioned seems to be geared to situations where you'd want the English translation first, but in the grammar pages we were discussing, that would typically go last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are better than I thought

But tell me why are you deleting files without notification!--Skashifakram (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple speedy deletion for reasons of copyright violation can be done without notification. You had enough notifications on your talk page to know that something was wrong with your uploads. You should have known that if you upload an image without even giving others any indication of why and under what kind of license it might be legitimate, it would be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

but you deleted images altogether,without speedy deletion tag.

Yes, that's why they are called "speedy" deletions. Tags such as {{db-f7}} exist for non-admins to alert an admin to a case and request deletion from them; if I as an admin see such a file, I can simply delete it right away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

S. Niemietz

How to proceed on Sara Niemietz?

WP:COI Close relationships may apply in the case of... Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors.

I have been using Sandra Bullock and Whitney Houston bios as a guide and using some of the newer templates such as UPC, YouTube and IMDb -- perhaps these should be on stub pages.

WP:PEACOCK does include the word "notable" and the word does appear at least twice in my edits. In my defense, "Notability" is one of the reasons that the article was put up for deletion. Again, in some cases the photo-art (I was in the process of uploading) may tell parts of this story better than using the Quotation template and I had time set aside for these edits.

I thought it was fairly clear from the article's Talk page that I had volunteered to clean up this article. My benefit from this project is and always was to learn the Wikipedia scripting interface. 009o9 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The One Where Rachel Smokes.jpg

Thank you for the notification. I believe I have addressed NFCC#8, do I have to wait for someone to double check this or should I remove the template? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale format

Hey... the image File:Sanjeev kumar-3-650x700-2008-12-12.jpg that you tagged for deletion is of a deceased Bollywood actor. Where can i find the format for the fair-use rationale of deceased people? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for asking. There isn't any fixed prescribed format. You just need to explain in a bit more detail, in your own words, why you think this image fits our criteria. Please consider especially if there might not be free alternatives – old movies where the movie itself has fallen into the public domain; photographs published in the US without copyright notices, that sort of thing. Just explain how you have explored such alternatives and why you feel there are no such alternatives to be found. You should also give a bit more information about the original source. This pic doesn't actually look like a "portrait", more like a screenshot from a movie, so where is it from? Some particularly well-known role of his? Incidentally, I'd also recommend exchanging {{Non-free historic image}} with {{Non-free biog-pic}}, which fits this situation better. It's not really a "unique historic photograph", is it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Undid Wanga tribe (Luhya)

Ok, firstly I would like to query when you visited Kenya and/or how you are such an expert on the Wanga Kingdom? Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia for the purposes of generating information for public knowledge. As a Wanga I take great exception to your high-handedness in unilaterlally deleting information that I compiled from openly available public material and for purposes of public knowledge especially for the thousands of young Wanga children who do not have a simple, compiled and generally accurate knowledge of their history. If you dont have a history or culture then don't disrespect the history and culture of others.

Your attitude is unacceptable for a collaborative project; you'll need to change it or you'll soon find yourself blocked from editing. To determine whether material is suitable for Wikipedia, it is entirely irrelevant whether I know Kenya, or whether you are a Wanga yourself, and making snide insinuations about me "not having a history or culture" is rather uncalled-for too. You are very welcome to continue contributing to your favourite topic, but your contributions need to stick to this project's content standards. Information needs to be properly sourced to reliable sources; text must be neutral and encyclopedic in tone; text must not be copy-pasted verbatim from other sources so as to not violate copyrights; images must be properly sourced and freely licensed. Your work so far unfortunately failed on all these counts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK language

But Choky Ice is an award-winning performer. How is that "puffery" or considered bias? It's not like I said he was legendary or something along those lines.--LowKey08 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "award-winning" in the lead sentence of a bio is almost always problematic. It is of very little substance – anybody could have won some award for something at some point in their lives; the word gives no information about how significant the award was and to what degree it is representative of the sum total of that person's work. Yet, at the same time, it suggests some special quality of that person's work as a whole. I know this adjective is unfortunately (ab)used very often in this fashion, but it shouldn't be. If a particular award he won is particularly important and truly representative of this person's work, "due weight" considered, then just say that he won it, perhaps at the end of the lead section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz M-Class (W163)

I disagree with your consensus and feel you did not really study any differences between both the prototype design and the actual manufactured production vehicle. There are clearly visual differences between the clay model from 3 years prior to production and the 1998-2001 models. Obviously there are all-red taillights, much shorter lower body cladding in black plastic on the sides of the mock W163. A design element which never showed up on the 1998-1999 ML320 that had the two-tone design in lower grey plastic cladding nor the full body-coloring of the 1999-2001 ML430 and 2000-2001 ML320. The grille is also different as there are 5 bars in it versus the 3 bars on the production models in 1997 and the 1998 ML430. Most importantly, it's a clay model. Not an actual motor vehicle, but the source of its design which is pivotal to its existence as to why I included it.Carmaker1 (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You might have a case for including the images if there were reliable sources discussing these differences and the further development of the design between these prototypes and the final release, and if there was some discussion based on these sources in the article. Without discussion in the article, the images are worthless, and without sources, the discussion would be WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Teletype Corporation advertisement for the Model 28 Line of Equipment.jpg

On 9 April, you wrote:

Claimed to be public domain with a reasoning based on the fact that the trademark representing the company is no longer trademark-protected. However, since copyright and trademark are entirely different things, this is hardly a valid argument for PD. Might conceivably be PD for some other reason (non-renewal etc.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted by me on 9 April, the document does carry a trademark but does not carry a corpright. As I've also noted, The US Patent and Trademark Office records state "This registration was not renewed and therefore expired." This status change happened on December 15, 2000. Serial Number: 73157988, Registration Number: 1119161. The last renewal was on May 29, 1979. The trademark was transferred to AT&T on July 12, 1985 and they never renewed it.

Yet, I do not see the discussion closed. How do I escalate this issue within Wikepedia to get resolution? Wa3frp (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to do anything else right now. The discussion on WP:PUF will be closed in due time by another admin. With your statement there about the lack of a copyright notice on the publication itself you've provided a serious argument that may well mean we can keep the file. I think it's a lot more compelling than what you previously said about the trademarks. I'll have to check again about the rules (these copyright renewal and registration rules for US publications are notoriously messy), but if I find it all adds up, I may well retract the deletion proposal – Give me a day or two, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

multiple days given, no action seen...00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png

You never commented at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_15#File:Pilot_.28The_Cosby_Show.29_monopoly_lesson.png on whether you would consider evaluating images like all the other Image reviewers do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you don't seem to have tagged the image correctly, as I noted there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I do not have the time to engage in a sustained debate over several days for each, highly repetitive, case of a random non-free image that an uploader chooses to dig in his heels over. I made my point, and you made yours. Second, I simply do not accept that whatever people do at FA reviews has any bearing on the correct application of NFC policy. In my experience, people at FA are no more competent and only marginally more careful than the average user when it comes to judging NFC issues. NFC policy is shaped at WT:NFC and at FFD, and I know what the consensus is there. Your suggestion that we should submit to a "majority decision" of FA reviews of some kind makes no sense to me at all. If a majority of FAs have some non-free image, then every article can have some random one? That's absurd.

As for tagging, I use Twinkle for nominating images for deletion, as do most other people who do this job with some regularity, and Twinkle is supposed to do whatever tagging is necessary. Given the high volume of bad images that have to be nominated every day, and the tedious and mechanical nature of manual notifications, I personally refuse to do any tagging beyond what is automated. If you want more notifications in other places, please ask some bot programmer to help. What I do has been the common practice at FFD for years, and if there are still some normative texts anywhere around that suggest there is an obligation to do more, those texts have been out of touch with reality for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since your are deleting my stuff....

...here's a few of mine you can recommend to save you the trouble of looking:

• File:The Killing Numb Infobox.jpg
• File:The Killing Lucky Day Infobox.jpg
• File:The Killing Reflections Infobox.jpg

Glad I could save the trouble of looking for them! — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Who are you? "Old foe" [21]!? If you think I'm systematically out to delete your uploads, aren't you overestimatint your own importance a bit? I don't know you from a hole in the ground. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Our previous hole in the ground. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Lung Salad

Don't know the background here, but it looks like User:Gotthethrill is User:Lung salad:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tacitus_on_Christ&action=historysubmit&diff=487814312&oldid=481188053

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annals_(Tacitus)&action=historysubmit&diff=487814442&oldid=481048631

Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, seems pretty obvious. Blocked; thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SeikoEn again

Hi, looks like SeikoEn, whom you have topic-banned last year, is back using two other accounts. The checkuser has confirmed that these accounts are run by a same person, but couldn't confirm their identity with SeikoEn (and his previous sock Vitaly N.), because the accounts appear to be stale. I think their identity is pretty obvious and thus they both should be indeffed on grounds of the duck test. --glossologist (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tacitus on Christ

Hi, I think Tacitus on Christ needs to be semi protected for 3 months or so, given the persistent sockpuppet issues. Now we just had a new user whose first edit was a statement which did not correspond to the source. It may well be a new strategy for the indef-blocked user. He may come back with totally new accounts to just add items that have no source, but will claim sources for them, etc. as happened today. He seems to be very persistent and it will be just to hard to deal with unless there is semi-protection. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick favour please?

To save me opening half a dozen PUI's when we've already been there with Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 2#File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg. Latest sock from a serial copyright abuser has uploaded more images which have the same licensing problem. They have uploaded some others that are OK and some others which need to go to PUI for a new discussion, but these are the ones that can hopefully be deleted straight away.

• File:Lord Astor Minister.jpg
• File:Peter Luff Minister.jpg
• File:Andrew Robathan Minister.jpg
• File:Gerald Howarth Minister.jpg
• File:Nick Harvey Minister.jpg
• File:Philip Hammond Minister.jpg

Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it later this evening. Feel free to mark for deletion as "uploaded by banned user", if that's what it is (I wasn't familiar with the sock case). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware G5 applied to images, which is why I'm only going after the images with licencing problems. The sock case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive#18 April 2012. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Starlight Spectacular at Canada's Wonderland 4.jpg

I have posted a response to the proposed deletion of the article here.--Dom497 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Arsacid dynasty of Armenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek New Testament (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FSA sniper in Homs school.jpg

I did say who the source was. I clearly put Rebel propaganda image. The image was made by opposition/rebel activists and uploaded for dissemination for propaganda purposes. I don't understand what the problem is. If you still think that's not enough than I'll just get an image grab from one of their low-resolution videos from youtube which I think will be more in line with Wiki policy, but again I think that all the bases have been covered here. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Samofi

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I do not want to badger you, but there is an ongoing problem with Samofi. As you might be aware of it, he does not adhere to his topic-ban you are placed under. If you do not want to enforce it, then it is an advice and not an ArbCom resolution that has no compulsory power. However, I do not think that Samofi is apt to be taken to WP:AE, I might report him for a topic-ban violation, but, it won't solve anything. Perhaps, he could get a block for a duration of one week, and then he will refrain from editing the moot articles, he is topic-banned from until 2-3 days at best. It is true that Sammofi has a POV, however, my main problem with this user is that the way in which he conducts himself permanently does not indicate any consistency or logic. I do not know how to call his behaviour so that lest it fall under WP:NPA, therefore; I would call it confused.

It is just a thing that this user does not want to adhere to his topic-ban, but that he made two attempts at block-shopping aimed at two Hungarian users including me, yesterday, it just goes beyond all reason that I should yet tolerate.[22] [23] Not to mention that his reports abundantly cover his topic-ban in any possible sense...

Given that once already Samofi was blocked for a duration of indefinite from which he got a second chance to return [24]. Well, actually, indef seems reasonable again. I do not know what your opinion is about it. Please let me know:

1. you are willing to consider conducting an indef-block
2. you do not want to conduct it ,but have no objection to the motion being proposed at WP:AN
3. you oppose it.

--Nmate (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not in all disputed territories

As I saw in the debate over including Arabic text to Abu Musa Island or not , your opinion is "We always include names in all relevant languages in articles about disputed territories" . My two cent is the extent of the territorial dispute is determining , and we shall not include names in all relevant languages in all occasions . As in comparison , we does not include the Persian language to the article about Bahrain , because the territorial dispute is not so serious . Overall I think because including or not including is a matter of debate , your tone of warning to that editor is not so appropriate ( but I agree that the Arabic text may remain in this particular article , because the territorial dispute is serious enough ). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Bahrain and Tunbs is not that the dispute about Bahrain is "not so serious". The difference is that Bahrain isn't disputed at all. Iran has officially recognized Bahrain as a sovereign state, and has diplomatic relations with it, so it couldn't possibly now raise an official territorial claim over the entirety of its territory. And in fact, it doesn't. (Historical hints at such claims notwithstanding). Whereas with Tunbs and Abu Musa, the territorial dispute undoubtedly exists, and is in fact the only reason we have articles of this size about these islands in the first place – if it wasn't for their disputed status, we'd have no more than a three-line stub, probably.

The warning to De facto was valid and necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With a glance to the List of territorial disputes, we can find out the subjects of these list does not always follow the role in many occasions . Anyway , I'm more concerned about tolerance in tone of the warning.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no tolerance for tendentious editing, and there shouldn't be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Lorrie Morgan album

I disagree with your decision to remove the alternate cover from the article. I would have thought such circumstances would be congruent with the reason for the template extension. Nevertheless, have a good day. My76Strat (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Greek primacy

I'm in two minds myself. But Talk page discussion is required before twice blanking an article. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhm,... ? I did give my reasons on talk. You didn't give yours. (My revert today was a different matter, this was simply a revert of a near-vandalism edit of some guy who went around mechanically reverting whatever edits of mine he found, evidently without giving it any thought at all.) I guess I'll reinstate the redirect tomorrow or so, unless I hear of a good content argument to the contrary. Do you disagree the whole discussion about it being a Wikipedia neologism is WP:OR? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR that a Fringe view exists and its not OR that the term on WP predates the term in print, ...and these kind of neologisms through bad editing are something on which WP perhaps should take ownership. I'm not sure. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the "fringe view" can be treated in the other article. About the other point, I'm afraid I disagree: the observation that the term on WP predates the term in print very clearly is OR, and since that was currently the only raison d'être of the article, I continue to believe the article is untenable. I can of course see where you are coming from, and you really did a very good job carrying out that "OR" and demonstrating the neologism, but that's still something for a Wikipedia talk page, not for article space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You deleted the image I uploaded that had source information and are now deleting another version that does not

thumb|right|This is a version uploaded by a user who did not include source information. The file I uploaded titled "File:RSS march India.jpg" had accurate fair use justification. The image of the RSS march that I uploaded happened to already be uploaded, you deleted it because it was already uploaded and also on inaccurate claims that the article I used it in, the Fascism article was not related to it. When in fact in the article there is a section where it is specifically discussed by material from prominent historian on fascism, Stanley Payne who says that it has strong similarities to fascist ideology, and furthermore there is known evidence of the RSS leader Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar in his book Our Nation Defined (1938), praising Adolf Hitler's policies of purging Jews from German society and stating that this model of purification should be adopted by India.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I speedied the later copy because its fair use description was blatantly false (see WP:CSD#F7a, "clearly invalid fair-use tag"): it was claiming the image was used as the object of commentary in the article, which it was not. What the article commented upon was the thing shown in the picture, not the picture itself, as a creative work. The picture only served as a random piece of illustration. For this reason, any attempt at justifying it under WP:NFC will fail: it is obviously replaceable, with any other photograph anybody could take of some RSS formation anywhere at any time. The only chance for us to keep the picture is if it really was free as the earlier uploader claimed, but the chances of finding confirmation for that seem slim. As for the sourcing, yes, you gave a source, but the source was in fact invalid, because that source was likely just another mirror of our earlier Wikipedia upload; it was not sufficient for verifying who the original copyright owner and author was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Slavic alternate names of Greek Macedonia

I resent being called tendentious when I'm trying to create a compromise by treating the two different languages equally. As far as I know, no agreement concerning these settlement has been ever reached, so the current versions have by no means reached a consensus. There are strong arguments for including Bulgarian at least alongside with Macedonian, so removing it without a real explanation doesn't seem objective to me. Kostja (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This matter has been literally debated to death, and you know perfectly well that your preferred version has at least no more consensus on its side than any other. Nobody has made any constructive content contribution to those sorry old stub articles on these villages in years, but people keep edit-warring over those stupid names. It is an object of irrational obsession for a few editors motivated by an urge for symbolic national territory-marking – users who think of articles the way dogs think of lamp-posts, rather than the way responsible authors think about reader-friendly and informative writing.

Right now, the articles had been at rest for half a year. For you to now come and start the same old thing all over again is deeply unconstructive.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, unlike my preferred version, some Bulgarian users wanted to replace Macedonian with Bulgarian, while some others wanted to simply have Slavic as the name of the language. I still don't see why my version is tendentious and I don't see why you need to try to guess my motives and make such bad faith accusations. And it's not especially constructive to reverse to a version that only favors one side. Kostja (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, few of these articles could be substantially expanded, anyway. There is, of course substantial historical information about them, but as it mostly comes from Bulgarian sources, one can easily imagine what the reaction would be if one tried to introduce it into the article. Kostja (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The very assumption that there are "sides" to consider here is pure idiocy, and anybody thinking of these articles in such terms needs to be kicked off the project. There is only one side to consider, and that's our readers, who do not care about your pet ideological conflicts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are of course different Point of View, which must be both represented. Isn't that quite a big part of the project? Kostja (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

POV differences are "presented" and discussed once, in the article dedicated to the issue. You don't get to push your favourite POV anxieties down into every single place in every single article where the topic is touched on in passing. Especially not when they are so incredibly petty, trivial and of absolutely no interest to the rest of the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there are multiple articles which are affected by this issue, it makes sense to have some standard on which names to use. And right now these articles push another point of view - why is that any more acceptable. Kostja (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Kostja, the process of Wikipedia is encapsulated in WP:BRD--be bold, get reverted, discuss. If you make an edit, and another editor reverts your edit, then you go to the talk page and build a consensus for your edit before putting your text back in place. Build a consensus for your version. If you cannot build a consensus, then drop the issue. This process is especially important for articles that are subject to the flaming passions of Balkan editors. --Taivo (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there are dozens of such articles and there are now many ways these alternate names are represented - some have only Macedonian, some only Bulgarian, some have them both and some simply have Slavic in the lead. If there is going to be some discussion on the topic, it should be centralized, so some consistency can be reached. Kostja (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the discussion involves what to call the language spoken by South Slavs in Greece, then Talk:Macedonian language perhaps? But this is an issue that has been discussed many times in the past and a compromise of sorts already reached (calling the language "Slavo-Macedonian", which satisfies Greek interests on what to call the Slavic language of their province of Macedonia). You are just the latest in a long line of friends of Bulgarian who are raising this issue. --Taivo (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a small correction: the preferred solution was "Macedonian Slavic", not "Slavo-Macedonian". Not a big difference, but some slight advantages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at that article, it was actually only you and a few Macedonian editors who agree with this proposal, no consensus was reached. And a better place for this dsicussion would probably be the talk page of the Macedonia (region) article. Kostja (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Future, I was working from memory at 3 a.m. :) Macedonian language is probably the better place, Kostja, since there are already interested parties watching that page. Otherwise you will have to notify all the interested parties who have commented at the discussion on what to call the Macedonian language in Greece and gather them elsewhere. This is also a linguistic issue and is more properly discussed on the talk page of a linguistic article. --Taivo (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use

The files I uploaded are under fair use. In no way do I intend to gain anything from them. They are just to improve wikipedia. However, if it is against the rules I wont do it.

ANI

As a courtesy, I wanted to inform you that I mentioned you at ANI, where I suggested that a less seemingly-involved admin would have been better placed to issue a warning to User:Pigsonthewing. Perhaps you might be willing to agree with me that it's often just as important to avoid any perception of being involved? If Andy's behaviour is really as bad as it is claimed, then other admins with no previous history of interaction would surely notice the problem and advise him of it. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't issue any warning to him in any admin role. To be sure, I acted as an uninvolved admin some weeks ago when I blocked him over the Hawkins affair – and quite rightly so, as I was completely uninvolved in that – but when it comes to infoboxes, I'm known to have a pronounced personal opinion as an editor and I make no secret of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I do understand that you see your action as uninvolved, and you have a point, but I think you would agree that Andy clearly does not view your action in the same light, following the block. I think there's room for a broader debate about an increasing number of specialised infoboxes vs standardising on a smaller number of general ones, and I wonder if you could suggest a good venue to examine the issues? Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but why would there be any expectation of any present action of mine being "uninvolved"? And what action? I didn't take any action against him at all. I gave him a warning about what I would do as an editor – take him to Arbcom if necessary. Since when does one have to be an uninvolved admin to do that? (And, reiterating, let's be clear about this too, my "involved" status here has nothing to do with the fact that I previously blocked him; it's purely because of my having an active editorial position on the present content issue.) – As for further content discussion, my understanding is that the matter of this infobox template was exhaustively discussed in the context of a recent large RfC. I don't really think further debate will improve that situation in the short run. People just need to accept the status quo, which is largely characterized as consensus among the inner circle of people who actually write and maintain the articles in question, as opposed to a deep-seated and firmly entrenched non-consensus once you include the drive-by commenters from outside that circle. People need to simply move on now, and the problem with PotW is exactly that he is fundamentally unable to do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that inability to drop something when he's lost. Between the templates, microformats, and BLPs, I think there is more than enough grounds for an RFC. If I can remember to do it after finals, I will draft one in about two weeks. Clearly Andy is not interested in engaging me on ANI, so maybe the RFC is needed. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, I'd rather we didn't get into the habit of looking at discussions as win/lose, as that just doesn't help people to find common ground. Frankly, I don't blame anyone for not engaging on ANI - it's a very unpleasant place to be conducting a debate. An RfC, framed constructively, is much more likely to promote the kind of editing all of us would prefer to see.

FPAS, the action I referred to was issuing the warning and threatening Andy with ArbCom. I'm sorry, I thought I'd made that clear. I've already accepted that you don't see yourself as "involved" when doing that. Nevertheless, you seem to have missed the point that having made a controversial block of Andy recently, he is very unlikely to see you as uninvolved when you go to his talk page and warn him. What outcome were you looking for? You think that you are likely to persuade him of anything, after that block? No, your most prudent course of action would be to step away and let somebody who hadn't recently blocked him try to talk to him. People are usually more likely to respond positively to impartial, reasoned discussion than "do as I say, or else".

As for the issues surrounding specialised vs generalised infoboxes, I'd be most interested to see a link to where that was decided. What was the result? I do worry when I see the sense of ownership of "the inner circle of people who actually write and maintain the articles in question" phraseology. Good grief, am I to take it that you believe nobody else's opinion is worth anything on the subject? Far too many editors know nothing of the technical side of the wiki and actually seem to think it is some kind of badge of merit to be ignorant of those aspects. No, editors need to be willing to develop their technical as well as their writing skills, and the most rounded editors will have an understanding of all of the facets that mesh together to create quality, usable, accessible content. You're beginning to convince me that Andy actually had a point when he complained. I find all of this most disappointing, --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not getting my point, so I'll have to repeat myself. You say: "I've already accepted that you don't see yourself as "involved" when doing that"??? No, wrong. I was involved, but I did nothing for which there would even be any reason to expect me not to be so. And I was involved, but not for the reason you suggest. Prior admin action does not create "involved" status; participation in content disputes does. I gave him fair notice that I, as a content opponent, would escalate the matter to Arbcom. No, indeed, I had little hope that he would "respond positively" to that, but my experience of watching him for the last few weeks shows me he is unlikely to respond positively to anything at all.

Your other point, I'm afraid, is a red herring. There is no "technical" dispute about specialised vs generalised infoboxes that is at issue here. There is purely a content dispute about what kinds of infoboxes these articles should use. The issue is not one between technical understanding or non-understanding, but about being able to stop beating a dead horse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's very hard to see things not as win-loss in a situation such as the BRFA I linked to, where when I asked him to link to community consensus so I could approve the bot, he refused to link it and kept saying consensus existed because it was obvious it existed. When things come down to "I know best," as they do often do with POTW, the collaborative process is unworkable. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I beating a dead horse as well? I just took a look at some of the infobox changes that Andy has been complaining about. Are either of you prepared to defend this sort of edit where date of death, age and years active (and more) were removed by a clumsy replacement of one type of infobox by another? Who is patrolling the area? If you remove Andy from the topic, are the both of you ready to step in and prevent the damage? I'm damned certain I'm not going to. --RexxS (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would I want to "prevent" such edits? It was a perfectly justifiable, responsible editorial choice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Because any non-partisan editor would see the removal date of birth from an infobox or the loss of "ragtime" from Scott Joplin's as making the article worse. You think those sort of edits are "perfectly justifiable" and "responsible"? Let's face it, you're simply taking sides in a content dispute because of the personalities, not the content. I won't waste any more of our time here. --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review

Would you kindly reopen [ [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_16&action=edit&oldid=489144957. The substantive value of this picture was discussed by many editors. And you commented in the discussion. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I merely gave a brief procedural comment about the applicability of a specific argument in that discussion, without voting myself, so I don't believe that precludes me from closing it. As for the merits of the case, I stand by my assessment that the majority of keep votes failed to substantially address the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Then I will file for deletion review based on your involvement, since you expressed an opinion, and on incorrect reading of consensus. I will do so later today, as I have to leave now, but I will check back here for further response if any. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I see, Alanscottwalker has already commented. I wait for you, Alan, to file the review then. JCAla (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

?

The result of the deletion discussion for the Massoud/Qadir image was in no way "delete". I ask you to revert your unilateral decision which in no way comes even close to reflecting the consensus - which was actually "keep". Multiple editors addressed the NFC issue. JCAla (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Massoud and Qadir 2.PNG. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, saw it, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dim.vas.nikol's Macedonia alterations

Hiya there,

Thanks for swiftly reverting the Macedonian references that User talk:Dim.vas.nikol made across Eurovision articles. I have posted a sincere caution on their talk page. However, some of their edits appear to have gone over the 1RR policy set out at ARBMAC; and I'm wondering if we should leave the caution as it is, or also add their name to the list of potential violators? Wesley☀Mouse 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I didn't seem him technically violating the special 1RR, or revert-warring in general. Sure, his edits were unconstructive, but as far as I can see he hasn't been repeating his first edits after they were removed, so I don't think we should be too hard on him right now. Pointing him to the existence of the 1R rule, as you did, was certainly appropriate, but I think for the moment we can leave it at that, as he is pretty new to this. (Incidentally, maybe your choice of diff to his edits that you used in your warning ("like you did in this edit") may not have been ideal, because that was actually a self-rv removing that "FYROM" thing, trying, presumably in good faith, to fix a template he had unintentionally messed up earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed I highlighted the wrong diff - grrrr. Still getting use to the new look "diff" thing, and have been prone to highlighting the wrong diffs before now as a result of it. I'll put the correct diff on now. I have noted though at ARBMAC, then even if a warning a caution notice is posted to a user, that their name needs to be added to the list of "warned" people. So I've put it on anyway, and made a point that its a caution, so people can be vigilant. Worth noting the same user has gone on a mini-crusade across other Macedonian articles doing the same FYROM manoeuvre. Wesley☀Mouse 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab

Since there has been ongoing discussion in the archive, I have unarchived the case and reopened it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, probably a good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

• I like to assume good faith, especially with administrators, but these contributions [25] [26] [27] [28] makes me come to the conclusion that you either misunderstand what's going on here or you're just seeing things the way you want to see them. Basically, there is currently no consensus on how to change WP:PORNBIO, but there is a consensus on the guideline in general (because if the latter were false, the guideline wouldn't exist, would it?). Your delete !votes seem rather biased. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, really? That's all an admin has to say? And I notice that you're not actually denying a bias either. But fine, I'll go away. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion

Someone is unable to just sit their twelve-hour block out. This is a bit ominous as well. -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MCQ#Adding Reuters photo of Aaron Spelling

I have permission from Reuters who said the use of Aaron spelling image is "fair use". You may reply there. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pritam picture

Hello, I honestly don't know why I did that but it has really been awhile sense I have uploaded pictures (probably sense November 2011) and ever sense my last upload wikipedia introduced the new format and that just confused me. Anyway I can give you proof that I am the creator via my pictures I uploaded in the past. Just go here User:Arsenalkid700#Pictures. Copy and paste into the search bar at the top right and you will see that all these pictures are of my own work. Very sorry for the inconvenience but like I said I am learning how to upload via the new picture upload format. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MCQ#Image of Matt Gunther

I got permission; you may reply there. --George Ho (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I see you removed the Megitza image from Queue 6 (DYK) - I have sent the permission from Megitza to the permissions-commons email. Could the image be added back on? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:MCQ#Adding Reuters photo of Aaron Spelling

I have given proof of correspondance. You may reply. --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Replacable

I'm wondering why you deleted files of people and said they were "obviously replaceable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs)

According to WP:NFC, non-free photographs of living people are almost always deemed replaceable with free alternatives, because it is always possible for somebody else to go and take a new photograph of the subject and release it under a free license. Normally, with replaceable non-free images, you'd get a notification and two days waiting period before deletion, although in a case like this it wouldn't in the end make any difference, because the deletion would have been 100% certain. However, in this particular case, the image File:GordonHugenberger.jpg also fell under WP:CSD#F7a ("Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag"). In your image description, you had claimed (a) that it was a "unique historic image", (b) that it was "object of commentary", and (c) that "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this work". All of this was blatantly false. This made the image deletable immediately, without notification. If you can't be bothered to provide at least a correct, truthful description of what the image is, you should not be too surprised if other people can't be bothered notifying you about the problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the criteria... and your insinuation that I was untruthful is a bit insulting. This kind of assumption of negative intent, and the smug tone you're taking makes me not want to contribute to Wikipedia any further... rather than blast me for misunderstanding the criteria you could perhaps explain what was incorrect about my understanding. The image is both unique and historical, in that it depicts a historical figure and is not a reproduced or easily reproduced photo. The article is a discussion of the subject of the photo, does that not make it the object of commentary and dedicated to this work (the person photographed?)ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between a photograph and the thing it shows. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and V-J Day in Times Square are articles about photographs. Your article was an article about a person, not about a photograph. You are by no means alone in not understanding this difference, and I have been struggling to understand why so many uploaders fail to grasp it. I really don't know how we could make it any clearer than the upload form does it now. Honestly, if you could make me understand how and why people keep misunderstanding these instructions and how we could improve them, I'd be glad. What is unclear about: "the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows.", and abut "The article as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this particular photograph/painting. (It is not just about the person or thing shown in the picture.)"? I wish I knew. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For me, it was because I could not find a category that was for a portrait of a living person. I read "the image itself is the topic of discussion" to mean "the thing imaged itself is the topic of discussion" as opposed to posting a picture that is unrelated but might add to the article (in my article about Bruce, posting a picture of the college he teaches at, or a painting he likes or has influence him would be an example of what I would have thought this is prohibiting). Honestly, since there was no clear category for a picture of a living person I assumed it was an oversight and picked the closest thing I could find. The second one is another case of thinking that since there was no clear category which a portrait of a living person fit into, in my mind I had replaced "photograph or painting" with "subject of the photo." Especially since the categories to select were not limited to photos (picture of architecture was in there, historic photos, other categories not limited to creative works). I don't know about others, but if there was a clear category for what to do about photos or portraits of living persons, I would have gone with that... but there isn't. What SHOULD we do for photos of living persons?ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. I really appreciate it – you are the first who has ever made this explicit in this way. Well, the answer to "what should we do about these" is: Not upload them. That's the whole point about not having a category for them. Maybe I'll have to try and add some examples of such cases to the language under option 3 (where it now says "This file doesn't fit any of the categories above"), to make it clearer to people that the omission of this kind of case really isn't just an oversight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So articles about living persons can never have a picture in their info box of that person?ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if it's freely licensed. You could of course write to the person in question and ask them if they would release an image under a free license such as the CC-BY-SA license. If you could get such a release, that would be great. If you want to give it a try, please make sure you get them to explicitly confirm they allow free re-use of the image, not just on Wikipedia but also elsewhere and for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And if I take a photograph? Am I the owner and am able to grant such licence?ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If you have access to the person in question and can take a pic yourself, that's the easiest and best way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean...?

delete or no consensus? --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Meant "no consensus". Thanks for the notification. Didn't see that the stupid "tfd top" template works differently from "ffd top" and expects the result as a parameter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic infobox high jinks

Hi, since you're one of the few decent admins around nowadays, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Could you keep an eye on Germanic peoples? There have been a few problems there recently, with new User:Prophet of Hell, an IP from northern Italy and a few other accounts insisting on inserting one of the most ludicrous ethnic infobox collages Wikipedia has ever seen (it contains both Hitler and Jörg Haider). I and other users keep removing it but Prophet of Hell in particular insists on its reinstatement. He's not very communicative, possibly because - I suspect - he is using machine translation. This was his latest declaration of intent on the talk page [29]. Since then he hasn't bothered justifying his reverts. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

User:XtremeFanatic

I saw that you warned XtremeFanatic about uploading copyvios: he has received a number of warnings for disruptive editing but just blanks his talkpage and keeps going. I think a block is long overdue. Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised picture

I have changed the picture I have used for my page and I now believe it complies with copyright laws. Apologies for the original mistake. I am quite new to wikipedia editing

Hello, thanks for responding. If you mean File:St Bartholomew's Church - geograph.org.uk - 488691.jpg, yes, that one's fine. Actually, the other copy didn't have a copyright problem either, I just removed it because it was a redundant copy of a file we already had.

About the other two images you are using currently, since they are basically just text in a table, may I make a suggestion: they would actually be a lot more readable and a lot more useful if you replaced them with an actual table in your wiki text. Here is how it's done:

{|class="wikitable sortable
|  Occupation groups in 1881
|-
!Occupation !! Male !! Female
|-
|General/local government || 9 || –
|-
|Defence of the country   || 1 || –
|-
|Professionals            || 34 || 34
|-
|[…]                      || ... || ...
|-
|}

which gives:

Occupation groups in 1881

Occupation	Male	Female
General/local government	9	–
Defence of the country	1	–
Professionals	34	34
[…]	...	...

Just a suggestion. – That said, I still wonder if you could respond to my earlier question. Is there some way I or some other person from wikipedia could communicate with your group as a whole, for instance through your teacher? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

-- Happy to talk, although the deadline for the articles our students are supposed to do is tomorrow, so there's probably no point. We made our students aware of potential copyright issues, but it is obviously a complex issue, especially for first year students. Alex 14:00, 2 May 2012

Ah, hello, good to hear from you. Yeah, one of them told me about that deadline. Good luck to all. Let me first say I think this is a great project overall. I'd only wish I had been able to help the students more efficiently earlier on, because it was a bit of a strain having to communicate the same things to so many people going through the same difficulties. (I'm afraid some of them may hate me now, as the great destroyer of images.) If you do a project like this again some time, it might be a good idea to look at Wikipedia:School and university projects and maybe create a central place for communication on-wiki – e.g. a list of all the user accounts and articles involved, and a talk page that can serve as a kind of noticeboard. The points about images I would have liked to get across to the students were the following:

1. If you want a photograph (e.g. of the village, the village church etc.), it has to be a freely licensed one. Don't try taking one from the web and declaring it "fair use" / "non-free"; that won't work for that kind of image.
2. Photographs from geograph.org.uk are great and can be used freely. However, before uploading one, try searching on Commons if it isn't there already, just to avoid extra work. Most geograph pics were imported to Commons at some point.
3. Non-free images of data charts taken from the web are a bit of a problem: even though it might seem a tad nitpicky, we have to treat them as non-free and replaceable with free alternatives. So the best way is to simply re-create a chart from the underlying numeric data, in your own spreadsheet program, and then upload that as your "own work" and tag it as a free file.
4. For images that just represent data tables, consider the alternative of writing a real table directly in the wiki text – it sidesteps any copyright issues, is much easier to read, and you can even make it sortable and have other useful features.

If you could do me a favour, maybe it would be possible to still have a list of all the articles involved in this round? It might be useful for some Wikipedian to go through them and see if anything needs fixing.

Best regards, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. We have 160 students on the unit, so the list would be major; not sure whether that is feasible. Plus, it is part of the assignment to get the wikitext right, or to see me to get a hand. If they submit with faulty wikitext, or Wikipedia editors have to fix it, they'll get their mark reduced. So for now, we are kind of ok with unfixed pages.

1. We told them that they just can't rip-off photographs from other websites, but some of them apparently thought they can get away with it. :-/
2. The charts are from our own website "Vision of Britain" and we gave them permission to use them for the assignment. They should have mentioned that in the upload form...
3. I mentioned wikitext tables in the lectures, so am a bit puzzled that some of them tried to upload screenshots...

Best wishes, and thanks again for the help. Should we ever do anything like this unit again, we'll take in your advise. It was a bit of a learning curve for us lecturers as well. Cheers, Alex 14:50, 2 May 2012

I see. About the chart graphics, I sort of figured out something like that was going on, but we had no clear statement of a free license – especially since formally it would not have been enough to know they were licensed "for this assignment", but for free re-use everywhere and for all purposes. About general wiki technicalities, I'm glad to say most of them seem to have done pretty well; at least I didn't see any major problems. Orthography and grammar were a bit problematic in some cases. About the need for corrections, I'd just like to say that we are of course supposed to be a collaborative project, so I'd be a bit unhappy if anybody were to feel they'd get into problems just because somebody else intervened and fixed something for them. We are generally quite happy to help newcomers about such things, and I'd certainly prefer seeing newcomers who are communicative and eager to sollicit help, rather than newcomers who are anxious to get everything done by themselves and feel like they have to guard "their" work. (For instance, just now I did a few things on Great Bolas, and I'd hate to think I got the student in trouble for that. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been (and is until tomorrow) an issue with students being annoyed with someone else editing their page. Unfortunately, those who started editing their pages early and who had their pages edited by a Wikipedian, apparently spread the message that their assignments get "messed up" (to quote a student), which deterred the other students from adding their text. I.e. a lot of them are waiting until last minute to add the material to their assigned page, rather than adding bits and pieces and learning from the experience. We communicated to them several times that this is not an issue, and that they should regard this kind of scrutiny as help and not as nuisance. Not all got the message though, it seems... :-( If it is simple technical issues that need editing (i.e. syntax errors in, say, the infobox), that wouldn't be held against them. But leaving it to the last minute means errors won't get picked up by Wikipedians and they "submit" a faulty article, which is an issue. Again, thanks for your advise, much appreciated. We'll keep it in mind should we do another assignment like this. Alex 16:30, 2 May 2012 (GMT)

For example, File:1881 Norton le Moors Occupational Orders.png and File:Chart displaying the occupational structure of Kildale,1881.png have recently been uploaded. What should be done with them? Normally, I would tag the first one as "replaceable fair use" and the second one as "no evidence of permission", but you (Alexander von Lunen) wrote that there is some kind of permission for files from Vision of Britain. What kind of permission is that? In order to be kept, it would be necessary to publish the images under a free licence, and it would be necessary to have some method to prove that permission has been given by the copyright holder. That said, the table would better be typed in as a wikitable instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. In the first case, I think the uploader has in the meantime taken my advice on board and done a wiki table, so that case will be moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Tables should be tables. As far as the copyright for the charts is concerned, I'd have to check with the unit leader, who is also the copyright holder for the Vision of Britain website (I was just the programmer of it, and am assistant teacher for the unit). He told students it is ok to use chart images for their pages, so I reckon he must have been aware that this would imply releasing them under a CC license. Alex 16:20, 2 May 2012 (GMT)

Hello, I see you have re-edited my page again. Was it just for the sentence saying the village had hardly changed? If so can I not just edit this out and keep the rest? As it seems clear that the information is justifiable and appropriate for anyone wishing to read up on the village. Thanks too for removing the picture I posted, I realise now breached copyright but as a new user I didn't fully understand how to upload a photo! And still don't to be fair... Thanks for your time. Josh

hello

can i have rollback rights? :) Baboon43 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I see no evidence that you have any experience in vandalism cleanup. The only thing you've been doing is getting involved in contentious editing and edit-wars. If you think rollback could help you with that, then rollback isn't for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

actually those edit warring was with socks and i was a newbie but yea i guess i need experience in vandalism cleanup first Baboon43 (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Violation of interaction ban

Hi Fut. Perf., I'd just like to give you a heads-up that I have mentioned you in the course of a request for the enforcement of a community sanction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community sanctions enforcement request: Delicious carbuncle, concerning the violation of a community-imposed interaction ban. You are welcome to comment if you wish. Prioryman (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bracknell Town Centre and Water Clock

Hi. You deleted this picture. I guess I don't understand the license system properly. Can you give me a brief rundown on the reason for deletion & what license I need to be able to use the picture please? Thanks, Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas_Neill (talk • contribs)

File:Bracknell Town Centre and Water Clock.jpg was sourced to Flickr [30]. You uploaded it once as a non-free work under fair use, and once tagged as a freely licensed work. The first time it didn't work because it didn't match our non-free content criteria – its use was not necessary, because it could easily be replaced with some other picture that somebody else might take. The second time it didn't work because the license the original Flickr author put on it didn't match. It is a license "for non-commercial use only", which unfortunately isn't "free enough" for Wikipedia (because images here need to be freely re-usable by others for other purposes).

The only way you can use this picture is if you contact the author on Flickr and get them to release it under a more liberal license (e.g. {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}}). Or, of course, you could go and take your own photograph instead, or ask a friend to take one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Namuslu at ANI

You may be interested in knowing Namuslu's behavior is currently at ANI (WP:ANI#Namuslu's ownership issues at Istanbul). -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In re: File:Jross baughman rhodesia pulitzer02.jpg, File:Scoutwithgun.jpg

Permissions letters have been sent to [email protected] by the owner of the photos and tags updated. Hopefully this satisfies the requirements. Sorry for the hassle. The advisory sent to my Talk page was very helpful in consolidating the information needed to do this properly. --Romansperson (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant photos that illustrate the subject

Hello Fut.Perf, in reference to your remark that the photo I have included in the article of the border guard is not directly relevant to the events in the text, I want to inform you that I have nothing against you removing that photo. Instead, I have included two low-resolution photos that have direct connection and give excellent illustration on the character of the fighting during the initial offensive of the MK security forces in March 2001. Could you please tell me what do you think of the new images I inserted in the article. Thanks in advance.--Модернист (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Just in case

I suspect you may have seen this but just in case I thought that I would let you know that after you left a message about the topic ban BG archived your message (which is no problem as I know they have every right to do that) but they also added a reply. You can see it here User talk:BruceGrubb/archive 1#Topic ban. If you were aware of it please feel free to archive or delete this message as you wish and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 04:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, so let me get this straight, you think that adding a false canvass notice below every comment of a respected Wikipedia user is appropriate? Just to let you know, the reviewing administrator, User:DGG, stated that "the addition of that note multiple times was not appropriate." How would you feel if someone repeatedly added a note underneath every one of your comments and stated that you arrived to the discussion by canvassing, when you did not? I hope this clears things up and that you can see my point. I hold no hard feelings against you and wish you well. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Perfect,

Sorry for dragging you into this; but I think it's important to point out problems with anupam's comment above. I'm sure you have sufficient wit to see through lies, but I'm tired of letting them stand unchallenged.

• The "false canvas notice" was applied to an editor who admitted coming to the AN/I thread from a place where Lionel canvassed. The template that I placed included the relevant diff.;
• The notice was not placed under every edit by Cody7777777;
• There is reason to believe that other editors were canvassed to support anupam; I only applied the template to a subset of edits by the most clear-cut one;
• It's hardly the first time that anupam cherrypicked a sympathetic admin and then selectively used their response as a club to beat other editors. I have some other worrying diffs on this point, and am considering starting another subthread later if the problematic editing continues.

I'm sorry that you got roped into this. You probably don't want more talkpage drama; no need to continue here when there's a perfectly good AN/I thread. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

]]Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at [[User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#where to take this#09:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)]]|User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#where to take this]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MFD for references page

I think it is normal for users to even maintain pages with specific diffs. This is a mere collection of archived discussions regardless of who was involved in the dispute or discussion for future reference to my old, settled or current disputes. You might want to re-think over the nomination after taking another look at the page contents. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul up for peer review

The Istanbul article is up for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Istanbul/archive1 and I thought you might be interested in providing some feedback. Feel free to do so when you get a chance. -- tariqabjotu 05:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved review

I have at WP:AN raised a request to topic ban the editor DeknMike from Messianic Judaism related articles. One of the responders has requested an editor who is not involved with religion related content review the matter. You have a history of dealing with divisive issues of a nationalist sort, which I think is probably the closest approximation to this divisive religious issue. On that basis, I would request that you review the material at the AN request, and comments elsewhere, particularly at the Talk:Messianic Judaism page, and offer any input in any of the discussions that you might see fit to make. Thank you for your time, and, if you should so choose, any involvement you might choose to engage in. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand

Hello you said in my talk page "is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale." for my image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grampa_vs._Sexual_Inadequacy_Screenshot.png i dont understand what you are saying can you give me a little better explanation? thanksManSkirtDude101 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

When you use a non-free image, you must provide an explanation why this particular image is needed in the article and what purpose it is being used for. This explanation must be added in the file description page. In this particular case, it might be better to not even try giving such an explanation, because the rationale will be weak in any case. Screenshot images in TV articles can only be used if the image is necessary to make some important point in the article understood. For that, one of the minimum preconditions usually is that the image must be the object of explicit, substantial commentary in the article. This one isn't. The article has existed for a long time without an image, so you'd have a hard time explaining why it suddenly needs one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright i have fixed the problem and fixed the purpose. --ManSkirtDude101 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Are the PD claims regarding the media files on Železarsko lake killings legitimate? On CNN the label is not vetted meaning that the first file hasn't been checked by any CNN editor. That being said the edit-wars have started and are entering into BLP violation policies.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello FP. Recently you suggested on my talk page that RFC/Us were not of much use in nationally-motivated agenda editing. Though the above RFC/U is not of that kind, it is making a surprising amount of progress in the short time it's been open. Maybe it helps if the person being complained about can write clearly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a totally different case. Another difference between this and the ethnic dispute corners is that in the latter type of conflicts there is always a dearth of clueful outside attention. Anybody can understand and have an opinion about how much space to give some stupid sport show, but who wants to delve into the details of an obscure massacre in some obscure part of the world, especially when it requires – shudder! – reading a source? But the main difference is the motivation of the warriors. The urge to have one's own national mythology reflected intact on Wikipedia, and the experience that you have to push for your nation's side because otherwise the neighbours will be pushing for theirs, are so strong that the people involved typically cannot even imagine there might be a mode of editing that is not POV pushing. It's not just that they couldn't write neutrally even if they wanted to. They couldn't even want to write neutrally, even if they tried. The choice, for them, is not whether to be a POV pusher or whether to strive for neutrality; the only choice is whether to be a clumsy POV warrior or a sophisticated one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Jessica Capshaw

Hi, I don't know why you deleted my file. If you go to the URL provided, it clearly says at the footnote at the bottom, "Our website consists only free public domain photos." That is not any reason to delete. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I overlooked that note. However, looking more closely at the site now, it appears this is a photo-hosting site with contributions by anonymous uploaders, with little or no editorial oversight and no guarantee that any copyright claims on individual photos are reliable [31]. The "public domain" note you cited is also self-contradictory, because it goes on to say "if you intend to use an image you find here for commercial use, be aware that standards for such use are higher" – if that is the case, then it isn't public domain. This image is credited to "Rachel Worth / WENN [...] (via Newscom)". W.E.N.N (http://www.wenn.com) is a commercial photo site, and I see no reason to think the upload on galsh is authorized by them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will embark for a new photo. Thank you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dogwalkerz

Considering your blocking history, you might be interested in the discussion at Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dogwalkerz. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Capshaw Picture

What's wrong with the new picture? TRLIJC19 (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you've been out of luck so far with pictures of this lady. File:JessicaCapshaw4.png didn't work because the Flickr source, [32], was marked "non-commercial only", which means it's not considered fully free according to our criteria. The newest one, File:JessicaCapshawPD.jpg, doesn't work either, though it's again not your fault. The source website does make a "public domain" claim about it, but I have explained on WP:PUF why I think that claim is dubious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your old friend is back. I checked the IP range and it's him or her. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free Amazing Race photos

I will gladly replace them with free photos if I could find suitable alternatives. I cannot find any free photos of the cave visited in TAR19, with photos of Kraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat being the only place with free photos out there, and the only location with a free photo I can find for the TAR18 episode is Kolkata Town Hall which in itself has nothing to do with the events (there is a particular fountain visited, but there are no free photos of that either). What are your suggestions?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Dwainwr123#Blocked

Good block, but indef?! Bearian (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A clearly expressed, deliberate agenda of subverting copyright policy, systematically and repeatedly using lies to sneak in images they perfectly knew were inappropriate. I have no reasons to expect that this attitude will have changed in 48 hours, a week, a month or a year. Of course, as the saying goes, "indefinite is not infinite". I'd consider lifting it if they commit to never upload images again (here or on Commons). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bearian. The penalty seems pretty extreme, especially for someone who is a regular editor. I've seen people commit far more violations and be profoundly uncivil, and not get an indefinite block. I've worked with Debbie on a few articles, and she seemed perfectly willing to work with people who disagreed with her. HHIAdm (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This block has nothing to do with being uncivil or with how she behaves in disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re File talk:Uraeus Cobra figures, Reverse side of the throne of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt.jpg

I was the agent who processed the request.

My initial reaction was that the photo looked too good. However, when I saw the claim that the uploader was an art student, I considered the possibility that an art student might have the technical skills, especially if being tutored an expert, to take such a good photo.

I did not notice the copyright tag you observed. I should have, but I didn't. In my opinion, this does not conclusively prove the claim is false, but it does change the burden of proof.

I note that the image is for sale; it seems hard to believe that Lessing would be willing to sell an object he does not own. This makes it more likely that the permission is invalid, and even introduces the unlikely , but possible scenario in which the uploader is correct in asserting that the uploader is the photographer, but may have missed that rights were signed away at some time.

I have an email out to the uploader, who has not yet responded, even to reply that attempts to confirm are in progress. My original thought was to wait some time, then send an email directly to Lessing. I'm now inclined to repeal the permission, and ask for removal of the image, and put the burden of proof back on the uploader. WE can always restore if Lessing supports the claim. Would you concur?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it at least be changed from {{PermissionOTRS}} to {{OTRS received}} for the moment? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable way to proceed. Mark the OTRS as insufficient, and then just delete per the PUF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed to {{OTRS received}}. I added my comments to the PUF discussion. I would prefer that someone else do the deletion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

my deleted entry ali kalkan

With all my respect i have to tell you that i am a journalist in turkey.All of my information was true.The subject is a criminal person so what can i write about him Uyarici (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to write about this person, please make yourself familiar with our policy on biographies of living persons. It is extremely important that all information about living persons, but especially all information that is potentially contentious or negative, must be based on reliable published sources. This is particularly important in the case of claims of a criminal nature. Please be very careful to only include material that is impeccably sourced, and don't present allegations and accusations as facts unless there has been a formal conviction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear administrator,i noticed all of your advices and wiki policy .İ know all of the criminal judgements records about this prson .And all of them are trustable resources which collected by myself.As your advice i will edit the new sources when i can reach in time.Thank you for your interest and attentionUyarici (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No. You don't get to first recreate the unsourced article and then later add some sources when you find the time. BLP violations cannot be tolerated in an article, not even for half a day. Please get those sources first, only then recreate the article. You also need to be more careful about making sure the sources you do cite actually support your claims. Of the two sources you used in your latest attempt, one [33] didn't even mention the person in question at all, and the other [34] only said he was among some suspects who were detained temporarily in an investigation but he was released immediately after. This third source [35] that you had cited in the previous version didn't mention him either. Using sources in this way is really unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted photos

Hello, I recently uploaded File:Sofia ring road, dragalevtsi roundabout.jpg and File:The Russian Church of Sofia.jpg and now I see that you've deleted them because of "improper license". I believe the license to be suitable for Wikipedia as it gives permission "to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work" and this author has tens of photos on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and all of them are using exactly the same license. Nicksss93 (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. A cc-nc license is not considered fully free for our purposes. The items currently on Commons, such as commons:File:July Morning Boby Dimitrov.jpg, were apparently originally released on Flickr under a proper free license (cc-by-sa), and were confirmed to have been under that license at the time when they were uploaded to Commons. The Flickr user seems to have changed the license on Flickr to the nc version at a later date, or in some cases removed the image, which is their right to do, but it doesn't affect our prior uploads. However, now that his Flickr images are cc-nc, we can't make any new uploads (except if we could prove that these too were originally released under cc-by-sa, but I don't see how you could do that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ali Kalkan article

Dear administrator,i have all of the sources about this people but they are all court records and in turkish i wnted time to just get them translated to english.Your behaviour is not heartening for the new users of wikipedia.can you explain please are the sources enough in this article like (Ali Yasak) i couldn t understand the policy maybe so i will be very sorry about it and i will be grateful if you explain this if you can spent a little time for me.Best wishes and thanksUyarici (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ali Yasak article is also problematic, but at least there is one source and all the major points of the article appear to be more or less covered in it. It's not a good model to follow though. What you need is high-quality, published reliable sources, for every substantial point made in the article. It's not a problem if they are in Turkish, but they have to be published ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you it became a persistence for me to write this article :)) i will write but i wish and pray for you to not delete it again.with all my respect to your attention♥Uyarici (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For the work taken in discussion and cleanup of the Manav Gupta images. Diego (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, it's appreciated. I rarely get wikilove messages for the stuff I do on FFD :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Zeibekiko

I saw your name in the history of Zeibekiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can you review the recent activity over there? I reverted one persons edit, then reverted back further after reviewing what appeared to be consensus. The material has since been updated again. As I can't read the most recently added ref, and as I'm not familiar with the history of the dispute at the article, I wanted to ask someone with more of a history over there to look over it. I'll also be asking JamesBWatson to take a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The IP activities were from a known, rather persistent sockpuppeter; I forget what name we have been using to file the socks under. The pseudo-etymologies from "Zeus" and "bekos" have been one of his obsessions for a long time. They are utter nonsense, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Μπορώ να ρωτήσω κάτι; Με ποιο δικαίωμα χρίζεις τον εαυτό σου αρμόδιο να μπορεί να κρίνει πότε χρειάζεται μια pseydo-etymology σε ένα άρθρο και πότε όχι, όταν από ολόκληρες κοινωνίες θεωρείται η σωστότερη και έτσι γνωρίζεται; Όλοι ξέρουν το συγκεκριμένο είδος από την pseydo-etymology που αφαίρεσες. Και σε υπόλοιπα άρθρα υπάρχει pseydo-etymology --Dactarianou (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that this particular pseudo-etymology is widely believed, let alone by whole "societies". So far it has only been a single crackpot sockpuppeter on Wikipedia that's been pushing it, and for all I know he may very well have thought it up himself. But even if it was a widely available meme, what matters to us is not whether some people out there believe it, but whether reliable sources discuss it. Show me one good, reliable source (i.e. one whose author is a competent writer on etymology/linguistics, not just on dances) that discusses this idea – even if it's only mentioning it in order to disprove it – and we can include something about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer

This user is now vandalizing and edit-warring at Taos, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in apparent retaliation for whatever problem he has with me. Yworo (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And is now engaging in personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yworo

Resolved

 – JamesBWatson corrected me and I completely mixed up an undo and a rollback revert and how they look. It was my goof and my fault and I will remove that part of my post to User:Yworo. Consider this post moot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple concerns about this editor and I was wondering if you could address them. First off, an edit by User:Mlaffs was reverted and a template placed on Mlaffs' talk page. This wouldn't be a problem if User:Yworo didn't use Rollback to revert Mlaffs edit. It wasn't vandalism. I checked User:Yworo's contribs and found several examples of him/her using Rollback inappropriately (1, 2, 3 which included a warning, 4 same user another warning, 5 with warning). Those are just going back to March, there are probably more. Those are clear violations of the Rollback rules and misuse of vandalism templates. I would request his Rollback be revoked until he can learn to use the tool properly (one mistake is one too many), but that is your decision. I do feel that someone needs to talk with him. I have left a post on his talk page, but coming from an admin, it will carry more weight. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that at first sight I see more wrong with your postings than with his:

• I can see you posted to Yworo's talk page about your concerns, but why did you then not wait for him to respond, before you went to complain to several administrators? That's hardly good style.
• You also failed to notify him of these complaints. That's even more un-nice.
• I find your tone in telling him to remove the notice from his talkpage inappropriate. Why do you think you are in a position to order him around, using a bare imperative? I also don't agree the box in question is a personal attack in the first place. It's a rather uncommon thing, and some people certainly would have concerns about whether it is in accordance with policy, but it's certainly not a personal attack against anyone.
• Some of your charges about Yworo mislabeling things as vandalism and misusing rollback are false. For instance, [36] in Albert Ostman is not a rollback but an undo, and it gives a good-faith reason in the edit summary. Same goes for [37] on Doukhobor, and for [38] on Taos, New Mexico. I'm not saying his warnings have necessarily all been ideal, but I certainly cannot see a pattern of rollback abuse here. What I do see is a whole heap of needlessly aggressive and domineering behaviour from you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me answer these in order...

• I am not what you would call a patient person. But more importantly, the more I dug, the problems I found, the more I thought an admin handling things was the way to go.
• The tone could have been brought down a little, you are right. But as someone who has been here awhile, having to tell another user (who has been here just under 3 years) all I told him, I was a little pissed.
• Regardless, it is still a misuse of warning templates. I do still believe that having to tell a seasoned editor not to warn someone for a minor spelling goof, to check for proper reliable sources, to check for original research in those sources, to check for verifibility, etc. is something I shouldn't have to do with someone who has been an editor for almost 3 years. My behavior is documented, but we are talking about Yworo, not me (we can do that later, if you like). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have issued an apology for the accusation of User:Yworo misusing his Rollback feature. I have also removed the accusation from his talk page with an edit summary apology as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, I've been here seven and half years and have somewhere over 55,000 made over 63,000 edits. I don't agree with the "Don't template the regulars" essay and it is not required that I do. If third-parties want to get bent out of shape about it, I suggest they need a Wikibreak. I also suggest that they take the time to look at an editor's user page, not just their talk page, before going off on them. Yworo (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you had another account? Your status with this account is "reviewer, rollbacker, 37173 edits since: 2009-06-01" -- Brangifer (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited from a static IP belonging to a former employer starting in October 2004, only creating an account when I left that position. Yworo (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Carry on and good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yworo (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Neutralhomer might want to consider that his posts to my talk page were much more offensive and disruptive than any templating of a regular could ever be. In practice, I find that few regulars are actually offended by templates, provided one skips level 1 with the "Welcome to Wikipedia" message, and that those that are offended by them would be equally offended by a custom-crafted note. That is, those that are offended by a mild template are hotheads who get offended at the drop of a hat. I don't really see the point of being offended on behalf of another editor who has taken no offense themselves! Yworo (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo, again

Hey there, I'm a returning user interested mainly in clearing up nationalist historiographies from wikipedia Ottoman Empire related articles. The article on Kosovo is very problematic as there seems to be a concerted effort to stop the debate about merging the article with the Republic of Kosovo. Some users take it upon themselves to archive the discussion as if its closed. What are the options for someone interested in a wikipedia where nationalists do not prevail? Ottomanist (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

My previous username was interestedinfairness- just thought i'd clear that up. Ottomanist (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello Future, how are you? I just wanted to tell you that I started a discussion on the talk page. I also invited other users to take part in the debate. Regards. --Модернист (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Four-month-old RM

Hello Future. I originally intended to bring that perpetual RM on Talk:Kosovo up on ANI, but since you're there already, should I bother with that? -- Director (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Prophet of Hell

Hello Future! Since you are already familiar with this guy, it may not surprise you that he didn't learn much from his brevious block for WP:BATTLEGROUND: [39]. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't often find ANI amusing, but your comment in the resolved field was great. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Orthography may not be his strong suit, but he's certainly persistent: 178.5.5.248 (talk · contribs). Constantine ✍ 18:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Berke image

I responded at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_May_21#File:Berke.jpg - thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Teahouse logo

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Links to deleted images

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#File redlink should not lead to godawful upload form apparently involves a change you made. Could you comment there please? (the discussion is actually quite polite and calm, despite section-title:) DMacks (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me a little more information on the recent block of Historiographer, to keep things in one place, I am about to leave a note on his/her page. Penyulap ☏ 14:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This has now been spread over three or four pages, which is unfortunate. I have commented at the original thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Per this, would you consider granting me reviewer rights? I will not be if you deem me not to be suitable for the right, and will not request it again from any admin for at least a month.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, are we going to be using pending changes again after all? Sorry, that RfC is too big for me to find my way through right now. And honestly, I really don't know you at all and don't have the energy for looking through stuff to figure out what granting such a right would actually mean right now. Please don't take this as discouragement and don't feel discouraged from asking somebody else who knows you and the situation better, now or later (or ask at the official noticeboard or whatever we have for that purpose). Best regards, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable page protections

You do realize that Sepahan Isfahan F.C. is a major Asian football team, involved in a major ongoing Asian tournament? By locking the page for 6 months, you're essentially preventing the updating of the page of this club for 6 months by anyone and everyone, in the middle of a major tournament. This is unprecedented in the history of Wikipedia If you want to prevent disruption by the socks, you can semi-protect the page instead. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It does appear to be semi-protected. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look back at it, I actually did accidentally fully protect rather than semiprotect another article, Zlatko Kranjčar‎, but Sepahan Isfahan F.C. is only semiprotected as intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a Champions League game today, and I tried to edit Sepahan 's page for the result and it was locked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. It's been fixed now. Thanks. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's odd, because I definitely did only the semiprotection on that one [40]. There was no error to fix. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I may have been logged out/timed out when I tried to make the edit. I then checked the history of the page and assumed you had fully-protected the page. Anyways, it's all good now. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame conspiracy accusations

For almost a year, an SPA, Quione (talk · contribs) has engaged in sporadic non-constructive sniping [41][42][43][44] which has evolved to direct COI accusations [45][46] on the Talk:Aspartame controversy page. Several warning have been issued on the user's talk page. With a "final warning" issued, I am contacting you to determine the best course of action. For your convenience, I am linking the prior case involving this article in which the role of discretionary sanctions was discussed. In this case, I feel the disruptive behavior is the main issue. Because you are familiar with the issues, I am referring the matter to you, directly; I hope that is not inappropriate. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Something needs to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A brand new SPA, ThreePictures (talk · contribs) has chimed in.Novangelis (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind..

..having a look at the edits/deletions at WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You have an impersonator

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live, which revealed a sock whose username was created to parallel yours. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2 still

I have given the non-free rationale at File:Spider-Man 2 still.jpg. Please check it up. Thanks and regards.--Plea$ant 1623 18:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, saw it. Although I have to say I'm not really convinced of the rationale, and am considering nominating the pic for deletion at WP:FFD. Same goes for a few of the other screenshots you recently uploaded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Xenos2008

Hello Future Perfect. I wanted to let you know that I made a request at WP:ANI for an uninvolved administrator to review the block of Xenos2008 as I believe it was made in contravention in policy. You are mentioned in the summary of events. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A problem

Hi! There's a problem with an obsessed user that insists to add his original research essay about a supposed bad mastering of the album Not Your Kind of People. He's all over Youtube, Amazon, etc. with the same opinion. Can you stop him? Deepblue1 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

zeibekiko

My proposals for the improvement of this article are:

1. There is also a pseudo historian accepted theory of the origin of the dance, which is support that the name comes from the words Zei, as a derivative of Zeus, and the phrygian word bekos, which means bread according to Herodotus.

with citation: • Dance studies: Volume 16

2. The name used to symbolize the union of the spirit with the body. Supposedly it is believed that was danced in ancient times in honor of ancient gods.

with citation: • Cornhill: 1957 (as mentioned ).

I can see there is already a proclivity of the consencus. I believe that both of these references, will improve and inform this "longtime" pure article. So, I' ll be waiting for you answer. --Dactarianou (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these sources; now we know at least that this was not just the banned user's personal invention. However, the problem is still that these are not reliable sources with respect to the topic of etymologies (although they may well be reliable with respect to the topic of modern dances), and we are thus left without a reliable source even for saying that it's a pseudo-etymology. This is a general problem that occurs occasionally with such issues: certain fringe ideas are repeatedly covered by non-expert sources, but they are so obviously ridiculous to the expert that reliable sources won't even bother to refute them. In such cases, we can't simply report the claim on a par with the accepted scholarly alternative, because that would be giving undue weight to a fringe idea, but we also can't report on it with the kind of disclaimer you suggest, because that in turn would be WP:OR on our part. It's a quandary, and I'm far from certain how best to deal with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources can be proven reliable, with a third source. An independent third source is the source that describes a subject, without any interest associated with it. According to wipipedia rule this happen not to overlook the role of primary sources of an article, but it will ensure that the section can be written with an independent and neutral view with this use. For example this could be happen with the following third source:

- citation • Hellenic music, etymology, zeus - Bekos. --Dactarianou (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this one changes anything. This is just yet more of the same: another self-published webpage by a person who is a musician and composer, but does not provide any indication they have any formal training in music history, let alone the only academic discipline that would really matter here, i.e. linguistics. Nowhere close to a reliable source according to our standards. Yes, we now know this meme is transmitted via sources of this kind, but what we would need is a reputable, academic publication by a linguist who says something like: "some laypeople have suggested zembekikos comes from zeus bekos, but this is not a serious scholarly view; all etymologists agree it comes from something else." Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Academical Etymology can be find at Dictionary of Scarlatos Byzantios (Athens 1852), but an authoritative source according to the wikipedia is not only an academic source, but also the published work which is considered authoritative in relation to this issue. The citations which are valid in one context, are such as publications on:

• University press (magazines, books, sites, etc.), which is also the source that I gave before Dance studies: Volume 16

• National Magazines or

• A locally valid and recognized document or Magazine etc. --Dactarianou (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Scarlatos Byzantios is far too outdated to serve as a reliable source today (it was written when historical linguistics was only in its beginnings, and people simply had no way of forming any reasonable fact-based opinions about "Phrygian" etymologies.) All the other sources you mentioned may be reliable sources about some things, but not about etymologies – for that, they would have to be reliable sources in the field of modern historical linguistics or lexicography. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is something that explained. It will be used to refered only as a Folklore belief, not for the etymological purposes.

So, there are two ways-proposals about the article:

1.There is also a pseudo-historian theory of the origin of the dance, by Scarlatos Byzantios, which is support that the name comes from the words Zei, as a derivative of Zeus, and the phrygian word bekos, which means bread according to Herodotus. or 2.It is also accepted the folkloric view, that the name, comes from the words Zei, as a derivative of Zeus, and the phrygian word bekos, which means bread according to Herodotus. The name used to symbolize the union of the spirit with the body and it is believed that was danced in ancient times in honor of ancient gods. (Citations above) So, I'll be waiting for any agreement. --Dactarianou (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at File talk:James Kwesi Appiah, 2012.jpg.
Message added 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

delta 4 pictures, eads space tourism

Hello, no pb to delete the picture ,i read the new guidelines, if i want to use that kind of pictures like this chart File:Delta IV growth options.png (aside from less than 300 by 300 and 30 kb), what is the applicable section ?

File:Eads space tourism project concept.jpeg was also a pb (wrong filling), i wanted to use it to show the closenes of another project, Rocketplane XP, the eads plane does not show the similar configuration (only the inside but not the full outside).

Any advice ? Thanks in advance and sorry for the disturbance. --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Rowley

Shacktown123 has restored their version of Jeff Rowley three times; I've reverted twice so I'd appreciate it if you would handle it from here. Best regards, None but shining hours (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Rowley

I've been contacted as an OTRS agent, by an editor who is upset about the treatment of both the article Jeff Rowley and the editor.

Let me start by saying I am in agreement that the article before the stubification was in need of overhaul.

However, I disagree that labeling it a "monstrosity" meets our AGF goals.

I'll note, as an aside, that the editor is not Jeff Rowley. That does not mean that we do not have to worry about COI, but it isn't an AUTO problem.

Please forget your extensive experience with Wikipedia, and view the situation through the eyes of the editor for a moment. An editor, unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia, starts an article in September of 2011. Over time, substantial text is added, with many references to multiple sources, and many images. There have been recent issues regarding image licensing, which the editor is addressing.(This issue came to my attention because I've spent literally hours dealing with the licensing of many, many images.)

Over the eight months of the articles existence, there are virtually NO concerns expressed by anyone about the article, save the technical issues about image licensing, which have been mostly resolved. (You and I both know that with almost million articles, it is most likely that this slipped beneath the radar, rather than explicit approval by other editors, but there is no reason for a new editor to know this)

Out of the blue, with no warnings, almost all of the article is removed. It is perfectly understandable that someone with little Wikipedia experience might assume it was vandalized, and attempted to restore it. Please keep in mind that while we all know about 3RR, it isn't exactly an obvious rule, and until explained, it is perfectly understandable that an editor may think the best response to removal of material is restoration.

None of this means that violations of our requirements for articles should be relaxed, but I note that the editor is being told they may be blocked, even though there is zero prior evidence that anyone has indicated any problems with the article.

Could you suggest either a relevant project, where there may be some editors willing to help, or a specific editor, who might be willing to help this editor expand the article about Rowley, without running afoul of our guidelines regarding promotion?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a topic area I normally edit in. I only came across it by chance, while patrolling new image uploads. If the user wants help with the topic, I guess the best bet would be the relevant WikiProject. Wikipedia:WikiProject Water sports is the most specific I can find right now.

Just for the record, I disagree that calling the article a "monstrosity" violates AGF. It's admittedly not particularly kind, but it is purely a description of the product, with no implications about the motivations of the person who wrote it. The block warnings was not so much about the article but about the persistent misuse of image description pages. It should really not be so difficult to understand, even for a new user, that this was a misuse of the project and is not wanted here. It is also not true that he wasn't previously warned. He was warned on his talkpage yesterday for this promotional edit (on a different page, but about the same person), and he continued his glaringly promotional edits on multiple image pages today, after that first warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

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

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Aziz Shavershian in 2011.jpg

Hi Future!

You may recall requesting this image for deletion, on the grounds that it, "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information, or which could be adequately covered with text alone". However, I believe otherwise; and have disputed the deletion, claiming that there are no free images available, and our description of the subject would be in violation of OR - as we all may describe the individual, differently.

Furthermore, I notice that you have stated, that [on free images] "might reasonably be found" - if this image were to be deleted, could you please assist me in looking for an appropriate free image of the subject? I personally haven't found any, however a fresh pair of eyes, is always best! Regards, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The file is scheduled to be deleted by June 7 - can you please help me? -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian army

Hello Fut! I've initiated a move request at Talk:Army of Macedon, and would greatly appreciate your input there. Constantine ✍ 13:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Rowley Page

I am not Jeff Rowley but someone interested in improving the Jeff Rowley article

I've now read the Conflict of Interest Policy and now have a better appreciation of your concerns. I did not know about that policy prior to today, and think it would have been better if they had been sent with a more polite message, but I would like to move on and learn how I can contribute to an article about Jeff Rowley, and do so in compliance with guidelines. Can you suggest someone who might help me? Shacktown123 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Shacktown123--Shacktown123 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I dropped in here to that Future Perfect. I see you have a message on your talk page (here) that may help. Also, if you care to ask at my talk page I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I got involved in two issues in the last few hours, and I am very glad to see you have fixed both of them (one was at WP:ELN where someone was concerned about an IP spamming an external link to MET-Art, and the other was a sock harassing a user that I mentioned at WP:AN. While the time the community wastes in pointless debate over problem editors is amazing, I have been totally dismayed by the complacent acceptance of the harassment from that particular sock. I guess the underlying issues are too complex for people to bother, but cutting through the bs and blocking that long term abuser is clearly the only strategy that will help. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(sigh)

I just wanted to thank you for your work on WP. Your concern for people's use of "ss" and "ß" honours you. (Sorry for the half-edit just before -- got a new keyboard.) I did actually catch myself sighing happily upon reading your comment on that sorry User:Prophet of Hell business. Keep up the good work. Trigaranus (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:The Swarm Train & Station.jpg

Hello, I have left a message on the file page disputing your decision to nominate the image for deletion. Can you please read my message on the file page and post a message on my talk page with your response. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should wikipedia policy recognise its own imperfection.
• Project:innocent prisoner's dilemma Innocent prisoner's dilemma (AfD discussion)
• explanation for tagging that article as Liberian English

Since you discussed Penyulap's behaviour on the administrator's noticeboard a while back, perhaps you might like to venture an opinion on all this. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: copyright

To voice my thoughts/questions in one word → what? ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 11:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

wath ;_; ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 11:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this article has an answer for you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I laughed at bit at the answer, anyway → I'd like to inquire on why/what/etc was wrong with the image I uploaded. I'm a person who likes to learn from mistakes so I'll do better in the future. I look forward to your response. ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then, seriously. You uploaded File:Hammock near the rocky mountains British Columbia.png, saying it was "from a friend" of yours, it showed a place in Canada, and that it was "ineligible for copyright". Now, the last claim is patently false: photographs are always copyrightable, so even if this really was given to you by a friend, we'd need an explicit, verifiable licensing statement from that friend. However, given the fact that it was previously published here, with a different description (saying that it was a place in Norway), I have my doubts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear D: → I doubt you'll believe me but I legitimately thought it was a photo from canada → A friend of mine did give me the photo And told me so himself, Again I doubt you'll believe this. Either way, sorry for wasting your time. Its obvious I'm wrong here and I formally apologize for the waste of time. In the future I'll make sure I actually check for relevant sources/etc. If you have any tips on images I'd be open for advise, as I'm very new to Images on wikipedia. Sorry again! ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 11:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN#Request community ban for User:Runtshit

Wouldn't you say that the knowledge of the individual possessed by an account registered a few weeks ago strike you as suspicious (or a call for attention)?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what drives Mr. Wikipediania (talk · contribs), but apparently he has shown quite some fascination with the topic of old banned users. He seems to be systematically searching for old cases of serial sockpuppeters that have had no formal community ban discussion yet. I don't think his knowledge of these cases should be seen as a suspicious sign as such, because he has clearly been investigating them, but his interest in the topic is somehow odd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me that I was contacted recently by SudoGhost requesting that I put forward a formal community ban on an IP vandal that I've been battling for as long as I've been on this project. Why is it that people won't accept that a de facto ban is a thing that exists?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

Seeing as you are anyway involved in AE adjudication, could you take a look at this AE which as The Blade of the Northern Lights states: "Comments from other admins would be really nice too." Ankh.Morpork 15:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of picture BurnopfieldStJames

Please can you explain why this file has been deleted. No you cannot - because there was no reason. This image is perfect. When I uploaded it, I stated quite clearly about permissions. People like yourselves need to consider - is this Wikipedia (the free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit) or is it just for an 'exclusive' group of people who discriminate against less experienced editors? Oneill05 oneill (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

NEGATIVE BARNSTAR

It's such a shame that there are no Negative Barnstars. It's lucky for you, however, because I would quite happily have given you several after you deleted the image for NO REASON. Oneill05 oneill (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could try something like the following. Feel free to vary the text and image according to your likings.

{{subst:Award2
  |image=Thumbs down red.svg
  |topic=The Negative Barnstar
  |text=I hereby award you this negative barnstar, for being an abusive admin, an overall horrible person, and for deleting my image.
}}

However, this won't change the fact that your file File:BurnopfieldStJames.jpg didn't have any evidence that its owners had released it under a free license. Right now, the source website you cited, http://www.burnopfield.net, doesn't even exist. I honestly don't remember whether last time I looked it was also already offline, or whether it existed but showed no evidence of licensing. If you can cite a proper release statement now, I can still restore the image. If you want to ask me to do that, you might want to choose to make your negative barnstar not too horribly abusive, because that might result in me disliking you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

OK

RE: File talk:Aquae Sulis artist impression.jpg

Hi. I've no idea what's happenning there! Anyway, you may have noticed that the wording in {{di-replaceable fair use-notice}} has now been amended. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about uploading pictures...

Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise!

I hope you won't mind my writing to you. I have a question about uploading pictures and after scouring all the pages, and discussion pages, on image policy i thought it might be easiest to ask you directly, as you seem to be an authority on these things :)

I'm a bit of a newby to wikipedia and one of the tasks I've set myself is to improve pages on Caribbean writers such as E. A. Markham, Fred D'Aguiar, Wilson Harris, Caryl Phillips and others. One of the things I would like to do is to get an infobox with a picture up on their pages. From what I've read so far, it seems to me like the best way of doing this would be to write to institutions with which these writers are affiliated, or - where I can track them down - authors of particular pictures and ask them if they would release a picture of the author in question under the conditions of free use, or - at the least - give permission for it to be used on Wikipedia under the conditions of fair use. I have already attempted to do this for Wilson Harris though, some 3 weeks later, I have not received a response and I anticipate that my requests regarding the other writers might well be met with similar upresponsiveness! The policy on fair use is still a little unclear to me, so my question is: is there something I'm missing? Is it likely that some of the pictures of these authors that are on the internet would qualify for fair use (and, if so, what am I looking for?). Or am I best patiently sticking to my plan of action, and trying to get permissions for photographs to be used?

With all best,

Loriski (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. Trying to ask for permissions as you have been doing is probably the best bet for the moment. Writers may be one class of article subjects where our non-free content rules sometimes lead to disappointing results – as long as they are alive, our general principle that non-free photos of living persons are usually considered replaceable kicks in; at the same time, writers, even notable ones, tend to do their job away from the public and may less frequently appear at public events than most other classes of notable people (such as politicians, musicians or athletes), so getting a fresh free photograph may be less easy than in many other cases. If you're lucky, somebody might catch an occasion at a speech, a book signing event or some other such public appearance. Otherwise we're out of luck. To clarify, we really need a fully free release here; the alternative you mention, of a statement authorizing fair use on Wikipedia, will unfortunately not be sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clarifying - this is really helpful. I will keep writing to people in the hope, in which case, but much more happily now I'm able to rid myself of the niggling thought that there might be a much more time-efficient way of doing things that I just hadn't managed to figure out :) Loriski (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)