Misplaced Pages

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:34, 6 May 2010 view sourceRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti: merge now proposed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,135,661 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{notice|'''Note:''' I like to keep discussion threads together, so if you leave a message here I will usually respond here. If I have begun a discussion on your page, I'll see it if you respond there.

<small>A {{tl|ping}} would be appreciated if you reply at a later date. {{tl|Talkback}} notes here will generally not be needed.</small>

Note to '''new and non-logged-in editors''': Due to a long-term issue with vandalism, this talkpage has unfortunately had to be ]. If you need to contact me and can't post here, please just post your message on your own talkpage or the talkpage of the relevant article and add the code "<nowiki>{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}</nowiki>" to it, then I'll be sure to see it. }}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 20 |counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |minthreadstoarchive = 3
Line 10: Line 17:
{| class="infobox" width="315px" {| class="infobox" width="315px"
|- |-
! align="center" | ]<br />] ! align="center" | {{/Archives}}
|} |}
{{bots|deny=Sinebot}} {{bots|deny=SineBot}}
'''Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here'''


{{notice|Hello fellow Wikipedians, due to changed circumstances in my private and professional life I am currently hovering somewhere in between "busy in real life and may not respond quickly to inquiries" and "semi-retired". I'll probably be around from time to time, but please don't rely on me for quick admin action or the like, for the time being. All the best, – ] ] 05:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC) }}
== ] ==


Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Since you blocked twice my access to English wiki, I have no choice but contact you anonymously. Firstly, I want to express my deepest regret and disaffection for the two blockages. How could people jump to a judgement only by listening to one side's words? Don't you know the villain always sues his victim before he himself is prosecuted. It's User:Bertport who made the very first revert at 00:19, 19 February 2010 while I, mainly with ], had been contributing days to the article ]. I never see he does any constructive edit but only undoes others' contributions or stealthily stuffs his biased words.


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
I waited one week to finally edit the article, if you please have a look at what content is restored , you'll tell at once good from bad. Both sides' opinions are presented and historical events are scholarly argued, thus I wonder where come from the courage of Bertport to revert such an edit and his boldness to accuse others anticipately. Regards. -- LaGrandefr


Hello,
== Watch out ==


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
See . Not another interest party flood. Just a heads up ;) Michi


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
== Talkback ==


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
{{Talkback|Jéské Couriano}}


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
== "This is hardly correct" ==


Kind Regards,
It is indeed correct that some Greeks palatalize l and n sounds before an "ee" sound and others do not unless there is another vowel following. ] (]) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
: Hmm, that needs a better description then (and preferably a citation), because the way it was worded – both before and after your edit – it seemed to imply a contrast between, say, μαλλί /mali/, which might come out as either or something else, and μαλλιά /malia/, which would come out always as . While the second statement would be true, the first evidently isn't: in fact, ''always'' occurs before another vowel; there are no instances of it in word-final position. Can you give a more precise description what structures you are thinking of? Cheers, -- ] ] 06:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
::μαλλί might come out as either /maʎi/ or /mali/. What the previous poster was saying was that a further vowel would be needed to palatalize the previous λ or ν, as in μαλλιά /maʎa/. This is the case with some speakers, but not others. It seems to me that that was clear. ] (]) 23:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


]
::When the "ee" sound (η, ι, υ, ει, οι or υι) is the ''only'' vowel following an λ or ν, it is retained (whether or not the speaker palatalizes the λ or ν). It is only lost when there is another vowel following ''in the same syllable'' (something the previous poster failed to specify, by the way). ] (]) 02:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
::Looking over the article again, I see what you mean. (The palatalized sound is indeed analysed as a combination of the λ or ν plus the "ee" (or "i") sound. Not so, as I think I have demonstrated.) ] (]) 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


==Happy Adminship Anniversary!==
== Dardani ==
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->

{{ombox
Could you please help on this before growing in a hot dispute? The same misused reference, is being replicated in all Illyrian related articles. Moreover look at this ] nonsense pure ]. Just try to figure out what this (lead of the article) could possibly mean ''Peresadyes, (Greek: Περεσάδυές) were most likely a Thracian tribe of the Edones or Illyrians(?!) that ruled over, or(?!) with the Encheleans, or(?!) the Sesarethi, but only(?!) if the latter were not the Encheleans themselves(?!) and were part of the Taulantii group of tribes.''?!?!?!?! Thanks in advance ] (]) 11:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
| name = Happy Adminship
: I know next to nothing about the relevant literature on these topics, and, frankly, I'm amazed that any Wikipedian, either you or your opponents, could expect to be able to say anything definite about any of these totally marginal groups at all. ] ] 17:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
| image = ]

| imageright = ]
::I am aware of it, but this case is pure WP:SYNTH, just look at above sentence, does it make sense?! As I said before, this misuse of reference is spreading all over articles. Looks funny but even after me and Alexi resolved the dispute the article is protected now with the reason of an ongoing dispute:) ] (]) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
| style = border: 2px solid SlateBlue; background: linear-gradient(to right, #c5c5ec, #bfd1f2, #a9efea);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
:::Can you please take a look at ]. Seems another picture war is on the way ].] (]) 10:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
| plainlinks = yes

| text = <big>'''Happy adminship anniversary!'''</big><br />Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your ]. Enjoy this special day! ] (]) 02:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I replied here but let me tell you that I was very surprised by your proposal! (Joking) Is it really you or somebody has stolen your identity ?:) Anyway my idea is that a person should be accountable for its own actions. ] (]) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
}}
: Nah, it's still me. I'm in ur Misplaced Pages, bein an eevyl basterd, as usual. ] ] 15:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I replied there. Please try to understand my point. ] (]) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why did you put my name in tag teaming with other guys, here my last 500 contributions . Where do you see my tag teaming with quick reverts, except well known and now famous ] case, which was well explained by you in Kedadi case and where you do agree that I was right?! ] (]) 13:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion ] redux ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic {{#ifexist:]|]|{{{1}}}}}.}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in ] it was brought to the ].
Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion.
]

Cheers! ] (]) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:There is an argument you made on the WPANI discussion that I am curious about, but which I hope you don't mind if I ask you about here, rather than there. I think it is tangential to the question of the several thousand valid and useful wikilinks our nominator excised, won't explain, and won't allow to be restored.

:You asked why I hadn't used piped links, rather than redirects. In my first 10 or 15 thousand edits I did make a lot of use of piped links. They seemed to make more sense to me then, although I can't remember why. But as I maintained those articles I questioned my early reliance on them.

:The key link that I had originally extensively piped was ]/]. It turned out that the material I was working on required me to provide wikilinks to one or the other very frequently, probably several hundred instances.

:Should I, when I write, need to know where the base article is? Should I have to know whether the base article is at ], ], ], or even ]? ''(] is not a typographical error. In the mid-1970s the original classic 1947 design was revised. I gather the 1974 design ''looks'' practically identical to the 1947 design, to non-gun experts at least, but has significant improvements that don't show. I gather that many rifles that are ''called'' AK-47s are actually AK-74s.)'' In those hundreds of references to the rifle I came across a dozen instances, or a couple of dozen instances, where Kalashnikov had been translitered as Kalisnikov, or Kalashnakov, or other similar variants. I even came across instances with names something like "Krash-nikor", which is what it sounds like when the rifle is referred to in Afghanistan.

:After taking a look at all these choices I decided: I am not a gun expert. I decided I would let gun experts decide which alternate name should be the base name for the article. I decided that if the actual gun experts wanted to base their decision on how frequently each alternate name is used, it would be important I made sure I used redirects, rather than piped links, to make sure the name I quoted from the source material points to the right article. If I used redirects what links here would provide an accurate count of how many instance of each variant we had. If I used piped links the count would not be reliable.

:Is there a manual of style that recommends using piped links rather than redirection? If so I'd appreciate you drawing it to my attention.

:Is there some other reason you think piped links are superior to redirection?

:As they say, "inquiring minds would like to know."

:Cheers! ] (]) 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I'll try and explain my view. You are of course quite right that, in general, redirects are handy and should be used as often as possible. The problem exists only if a expression is inherently vague or semantically ambiguous, where a redirect "monopolises" the term for a specific target meaning. I don't suppose there is a problem with that in the AK-74 case, but there is one in the "Uyghur house" case. The expression "Uyghur house" isn't a proper name; it is a simple, generic descriptive phrase, meaning not more an not less than "a building associated with Uyghurs". Its use in the Guantanamo contexts you work with is still part of this same, generic ''meaning'' (a possibly conventionalised more specific ''reference'' in the special context of those reports notwithstanding). Using the term for a redirect to this specific reference implies that this use is the primary meaning of the expression among all its possible uses, which most likely it isn't. This is of course especially problematic if the reference connected with this particular use has negative associations or might be felt to throw a negative light on things in the eyes of some readers. If a reader were to use the search box to look for, say, ethnic domestic architecture traditions of Uyghurs, and is instead led to an article about Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo, this would be a negative surprise for them, which we want to avoid.
:: I mentioned another issue, which you didn't comment on above: the reason you had the need for so many links appears to have been that you were routinely linking to things from inside literal quotes, often in cases where your link constituted an explanation not of the ''meaning'' of a term, but an "easter-egg link" trying to explain what the expression ''referred to'' in the specific context. Please check ] to see why we usually don't do such links. We shouldn't intrude on literal quotes with bluelinks that aren't contained in the original text. If the quote contains an expression whose meaning or reference is truly in need of explanation, it should be done through an explicit explanatory note outside the quote itself ("in the above quote, 'Uyghur house' refers to a supposed ] …", and this of course would need a ref.) I agree with the other editor who apparently removed many of these links, if they did it for this reason. ] ] 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know in my talk page.

== Thank you ==

Thank you for letting me know in my talk page that you mentioned me in the AE. Please read my last comment. I actually '''agree''' with your proposal of imposing 1RR or 3RR rules to the whole group (last person that breaks it) rather than to the single person and I thank you for coming up with it. I would suggest that we extend that for at least 3 months. To me it makes sense and will give both us and the admins a break and more quietness in our editing and article improving.

I also have to praise ] who came up with the idea of having a Greco-Albanian group to deal off articles for Albanian-Greek problematics ]. Could you help us with some advise on how we could set that up? --<sub><span style="border:1.5px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></sub><sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

:Note, this rather disingenuous proposal comes on the heels of my discovery that Sulmues was recruiting people on the Albanian wikipedia to join him in his battles here and his ensuing refusal to translate what he wrote . ] (]) 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response ]. --<sub><span style="border:1.5px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></sub><sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should build something similar to the ]. --<sub><span style="border:1.5px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></sub><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

== Arvanites = Albanians ==

The Albanian ethnicity of the Arvanites is an fundamental fact which must be taken into account no matter how much users with Greek point of views appeal to change real history. --] (]) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

: You have pushed this view through repeated hit-and-run reverting attacks for more than four years now, after the orgy of revert-warring you participated in back in July 2005. You were topic-banned for a year for exactly such a hit-and-run attack in 2008. This is blatant tendentious editing; you have evidently learned nothing in all these five years. If you continue I will see to it that you are banned for good. ] ] 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

::People actually change so I urge you to present facts on the actual issue and to stop slandering and making threats. --] (]) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
::: There is massive sourcing to support the fact that Arvanites in Greece today do not identify ethnically as Albanians. It's in the article. And you have, of course, never in all these years brought reliable sources to the contrary, so you have no case. Yes, we had massive problems in the past about nationalist edit-warriors from the Greek side, but as far as this claim is concerned, they were absolutely right. Unless you start bringing reliable sources for your claims, I'm not going to waste any more words on debating you. ] ] 18:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Very well said, and I apologize cause I actually missed the actual sentence of them having a Greek consciousness now of days, though I wouldn't consider the fact as them being a population of Albanian origin as controversial and this very fundamental fact should be mentioned in the beginning of the article. --] (]) 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== The Shuppster is back ==

See the SPI here . ] (]) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

''Damn'' you're fast. I hadn't even finished notifying all the people he had gotten involved with. ] (]) 19:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot this IP as well . Thanks. ] (]) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

== Democracy ==

Up late tonight, are we? :) Thanks for the help on ], that stuff it really out there. ] (]) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

== Christovasilis ==

Thanks for the c-e job. By the way you have been mentioned in ], seems we have another situation.] (]) 11:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems User Zjarri has got out of control. Disruptive activity in ], initiating moves without any discussion.] (]) 11:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

:I think my changes aren't at all controversial as they are clearly stated on the talkpage. Alexikoua using partisan sources had claimed this person to be Greek while in fact he was Albanian as all non-partisan sources state. Interestingly his most used source is the company of Macedonian studies mostly known for publications trying to prove the "Greekness" of Macedonia. Note that this isn't the first time he's trying deliberately to present people as Greeks. Check ] for more.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, simply put your sources on the table. Alexikoua, I cannot verify your sources say what you claim they say (unlike with Zjarri's sources, of which I can check at least one.) ] ] 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

::I'll restore the sources since Zjarri removed them accidentally.] (]) 14:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

:I have added the sources on the talkpage so could you give a reply there too?--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 11:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

::I added more sources and doubled the size of the article.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== Agreed ==

Today, I had the chance to read your proposal at AE and I agree with it. The current situation is anything else but productive. For example as soon as Alexikoua reached 3 reverts in Greeks of Albania, Megistias started reverting . He also reverted Aigest . I remember clearly that with your help there was reached a consensus so I can't understand why he would start '''again''' reverting.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 13:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:I had also agreed earlier, but I am adding to your suggestion in Stifle's talk page ] another proposal. Could you please see that thread? --<sub><span style="border:1.5px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></sub><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== Wikiquette alert notice ==

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:wikihounding|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you.--See section ] (]) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

== AE Kedadi ==

Please note that the final decision has been made on this AE request; it will shortly be closed. ] (]) 10:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

: Yep, saw it, thanks for taking care of it. Now we just need someone to also take care of the obvious socks (see current SPI on "Guildenrich" = "Stupidus Maximus"; plus "TinaTrendelina", "ObserverFromAbove", "Kushtrim123"). ] ] 11:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

::FPS, how can you be so sure that these people are "obvious socks"? ] was already cleared by IP Checkuser, see ], whereas ] and ] also were already cleared ]. The only one that still has to be reported is ]. I have been accused several times to be Sarandioti and Guildenrich too, but those were proved false accusations as well. --<sub><span style="border:1.5px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></sub><sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll post my comments in the article's discussion page the following minutes, as per restriction. Actually the time I saved the new version I saw the note in my talk page.] (]) 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:Answered you --<sub><span style="border:1.5px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></sub><sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

== Kastri ==

]. I was wondering what do you think about that since it seems that you have enough knowledge on the subject.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many theories, I choosed the one that is described in the source Zjarri. used (Kretsi), which is definitely one of the most credible sources on the subject.] (]) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Does outing justify a block? (] (]) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC))
:I requested a checkuser from ] because of the similarity in editing to ], who runs website and has been banned from Misplaced Pages for soliciting meat puppets. (] (]) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC))
::The issue already got handled. Cheers, my friend. (] (]) 00:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

== Edit filter 166 ==

Could you take a look at this one please, it seems to be a problematic false positive: ]. Thanks in advance. The user was blocked as they tripped the filter, but from what I can see they were tagging deadlinks, which are infact dead, thus I will unblock them for now. --] (]) 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:Additional discussion here if its of any use to you: ]. It might provide some context at the very least. Hope this helps, --] (]) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

== Another nationalist hotspot ==


== Reverts ==
Could you please judge the situation, as I'd better avoid interacting with the ] certified revert-warrior and wikistalker (almost certainly he'll soon appear right here): . The problem ("Georgian" or "Jewish" or anything of this sort instead of "Soviet" when ethnicity hardly matters at all) is all over Misplaced Pages, though, so I don't know what would be a decent solution in the long run. ] (]) 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


If I come across one of their additions to RSN would it be helpful if I pinged you? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
== Polyphonic singing again ==
: Thanks, but I guess it's enough to get them reverted promptly – if they then start revert-warring it back in, there should be enough admin eyeballs on that page to push the block button eventually, right? It doesn't have to be always me. That person is a pest (I suppose you're familiar with their ]?), thanks for helping deal with them. ] ] 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::I looked it up after their recent posts, I'll keep an eye out for them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
, your opinion would be helpful to clarify it.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello,
== Could you semi-protect these pages? ==


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
In this article ] there has been a continuous tendency in vandalism edits by anon IP , , , and the last one . The same thing even more exagerated happens in ] article just look only the last days and the last one . Could you please semi-protect these pages so we can get rid of this abuse by anon IP, even other edits by IP are of no value, so we will lose nothing on allowing only established users to edit on these pages. Maybe this action can be extended over all Albanian articles which show such tendency. ] (]) 10:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Take the survey ''''''.
== Clarification on topic ban please ==


Kind Regards,
FPaS, simply wanting some clarification from you if possible please. As you gave , can you please advise if ]'s participation at ] and ] is in fact in violation of this topic ban? As he is not a named party to the arbitration, and because this Arbitration has to do with EE-editing (yet a-f'ing'gain) from which he is topic banned, simply wanting clarification from you. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


]


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
Hi, would like to make the following points:
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
# The ban on interaction with Russavia excludes cases of "dispute resolution" which this would fall under
# Since these are comments on an Arb Com case page, it is up to the Arbitrators and the Clerks to decide whether or not this violates the ban
Cheers, --] (]) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:Future, it isn't the interaction ban that is being raised, but rather the getting involved in issues which directly relate to the area from which a user is topic banned, and that is what the Arbcom centres on. Don't consider this a report, but rather a request for clarification from yourself, as the one who gave Martin that warning, and where you as an admin stand on issues such as this. If action should be taken, then so be it, but first and foremost it is a clarification request. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
: Actually, the ban excludes not just any "dispute resolution". It excludes only "legitimate and ''necessary'' dispute resolution". In my reading, that basically means resolution of disputes of which you are inherently part - a kind of "mind your own business" clause. (Otherwise you could simply jump into any odd discussion between Russavia and somebody else anywhere and declare it part of dispute resolution; it would essentially render the restriction vacuous.) So, to my mind this does fall under the restriction. It in fact falls under both clauses, the topic ban and the interaction ban at the same time: You are not supposed to comment on conflicts Russavia has with others; and you are not supposed to have conflicts of your own with Russavia, at least not related to any editing Russavia does on Estaern Europe, because you are not supposed to play any role in such editing to begin with. As for clerks, they have no exclusive jurisdiction over those pages; you are under normal restrictions there as everywhere else, which remain enforceable by any admin. ] ] 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::Please note that it was Russavia who started the interaction: ]. Sigh. I warned everybody around long ago that ] would have to be made reciprocal to make any sense. ] (]) 21:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::: I take your point, but Martin's interventions in the current Arbcom pages don't seem to be dealing with that incident, so they are not part of any concrete dispute resolution attempt of his relating to that issue initiated by Russavia. ] ] 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
:::: The issue is that my personal information was posted repeatedly on-wiki, including external links to google searches of my personal details, even when requested to stop. I've tried to resolve this privately via email so as not to invoke the ], without success. Therefore, unfortuantely, my involvement is now both legitimate and necessary. In any case, the Arbitrators (who are also admins), are in the better position to determine whether my involvement on the ArbCom case page is justified. --] (]) 00:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::::: I fail to see how these problems have anything to do with you having a need to comment on whether or not Biophys proxied for HanzoHattori? Another question: I can see you were in e-mail contact with clerk Amorymeltzer and he told you something about you being free to post to the case pages. Did he do so ''knowing'' you were under these related bans, i.e. was that intended as an explicit dispensation? – I'm going to ask Amory what his views are; until you get an explicit go-ahead again from either him or me or the arbs, I ask you to refrain from further postings to the case. ] ] 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== ] ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have undone your redirect of ] to ]. The latter article is on the actual region, whilst the former is an article on a large (and notable) diaspora which lives in that region. There is too much information in the former article which would be lost through the simple redirect. That the article may seem to be POV, is an issue of editing, and mainly of cleanup and better referencing. But it is a notable subject, and shouldn't be ''deleted'' by redirecting without attempting to salvage any content at all from it. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
Additionally, it doesn't appear to be a POVFORK of the region article, but somewhat of a split of ], and that could very well be legitimate. Don't you agree? --] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


</div>
: Hmm, well, whatever. I don't intend to get involved much with that article. If you want it retained, are you going to clean it up? I personally see little of value in it – the faults, both in language and in POV content, are so grave it would take no less work to just bring it to acceptable quality level, than to rewrite it from scratch, or merge it into the main article on the region, and until either of these are done, the quality is soo poor it's better to have nothing for the time being than to have this. I am also not convinced it needs to be a separate topic. What's the advantage in having separate articles for a region and for its (majority) population? The history and policits of the region ''are'' the history and politics of the people in it. I find it hard to think of any legitimate content in the population article that wouldn't also, automatically, be appropriate content for the region article. And in fact, the page as it stands is already going beyond its stated scope, because it is in fact dealing not just with the Armenians but with the other groups too (Meshketian Turks etc.) That does make it a POV fork, in my view. ] ] 22:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
</div>
::Hey FPaS, yes there are some problems with the article, such as some of the language (which I think is a matter for copyediting - I've seen worse actually) - I will suggest a merge of the article to that of the province, and will place a notice on the Armenian and Georgian projects for their input, so instead of forgetting about it completely, it might be useful to provide your input on the merge discussion which I will start, and will post a link here for you. Does that work for you? --] <sup>]</sup> 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->
::Merge proposed at ] and the two wikiprojects notified. Cheers, --] <sup>]</sup> 08:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:13, 19 November 2024

Note: I like to keep discussion threads together, so if you leave a message here I will usually respond here. If I have begun a discussion on your page, I'll see it if you respond there.

A {{ping}} would be appreciated if you reply at a later date. {{Talkback}} notes here will generally not be needed.

Note to new and non-logged-in editors: Due to a long-term issue with vandalism, this talkpage has unfortunately had to be semi-protected. If you need to contact me and can't post here, please just post your message on your own talkpage or the talkpage of the relevant article and add the code "{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}" to it, then I'll be sure to see it.

Archive
Archives


Hello fellow Wikipedians, due to changed circumstances in my private and professional life I am currently hovering somewhere in between "busy in real life and may not respond quickly to inquiries" and "semi-retired". I'll probably be around from time to time, but please don't rely on me for quick admin action or the like, for the time being. All the best, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Misplaced Pages globe and sysop mopHappy adminship anniversary!
Hi Future Perfect at Sunrise! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC) 		Party popper emoji

Reverts

If I come across one of their additions to RSN would it be helpful if I pinged you? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I guess it's enough to get them reverted promptly – if they then start revert-warring it back in, there should be enough admin eyeballs on that page to push the block button eventually, right? It doesn't have to be always me. That person is a pest (I suppose you're familiar with their LTA entry?), thanks for helping deal with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I looked it up after their recent posts, I'll keep an eye out for them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)